1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

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

Discussion in 'Christian Scriptures' started by kahn888, Nov 23, 2021.

  1. tampasteve

    tampasteve Lost in the swamp Staff Member Administrator CF Senior Ambassador Angels Team Supporter

    +6,177
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Republican
    ^^^This 100%, well written. Thank you.
     
  2. tampasteve

    tampasteve Lost in the swamp Staff Member Administrator CF Senior Ambassador Angels Team Supporter

    +6,177
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Republican
    1st, I am not involving the NASB in my part of this thread. 2nd, but can't you see, you are doing EXACTLY that with the KJV? You are ignoring the "obvious errors" in the KJV by writing other translation choices as being the incorrect ones. You present some compelling sounding arguments, but in the end you have to lean on that 18th century English is the preserved language choice of God (ignoring the original 1611 English in the process), which is just nonsense historically, theologically, and critically.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  3. BNR32FAN

    BNR32FAN He’s a Way of life Supporter

    +5,762
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    The NASB came from the critical text? That’s an inaccurate description. The critical text was used in comparison to several other manuscripts to determine what the majority of the manuscripts supported. This is the lie that you’ve bought into and now your promoting it yourself. A simple wiki search would reveal this lie if only you were interested in the truth and I’m sorry to say that I suspect that your not interested the truth because I find it hard to believe that you didn’t already know this before you made that claim given your level of study on the subject.
     
  4. CMDRExorcist

    CMDRExorcist Theology Explorer Supporter

    341
    +153
    United States
    Charismatic
    Single
    I'm with you here. I've worshipped with thousands of people and never met an MBVO... :confused:
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  5. Strong in Him

    Strong in Him I can do all things through Christ Supporter

    +6,611
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    Me neither.
    I think the forummer has made up the word and the concept.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  6. BeingThere

    BeingThere Member

    144
    +60
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    As many others have more eloquently stated in this thread, it is not just the letter, but the spirit of the gospel which new translations so resoundingly confer to the modern reader. Let us heed this phrase in all its spiritual importance:

    6 He has qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not based on what is written but on the Spirit, because what is written kills, but the Spirit gives life.
    (II Corinthians 3:6, CEB)
     
  7. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +7,566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Well, I also did basically say there are OAO Proponents (Original Autograph Only Believers) and Modern Scholarship Christians, too.

    Anyways, there are believers who state that they will not read the KJV and or they think it is a bad translation and yet they are perfectly fine with Modern bibles; Hence, they are MBVO.

    Let me give you some examples.

    “It’s time to retire the KJV”
    ~ Quote by Dave Miller.​

    Source:
    It’s Time to Retire the KJV

    “There are many ways King James and his stooges deceitfully change sacred scripture.”
    ~ Quote by a Catholic apologist.​

    Source:
    http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/translations/kjversion.htm

    “…it’s really time you shelve the King James Version and pick a new translation!”
    ~ Quote by Matthew Scott Miller.​

    Source:
    3 Reasons You Shouldn't Read the King James Bible | Logos Made Flesh

    “Four reasons not to use the King James Bible.”
    “…this translation has long outlived its usefulness.”

    ~ Quotes by Max Aplin.​

    Source:
    Four Reasons Not to Use the King James Version

    “Why I do not think the King James Bible is the best translation available today.”
    ~ Quote by Daniel B. Wallace.​

    Source:
    Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today | Bible.org

    Side Note: To learn about Daniel B. Wallace’s insane comments about what he really thinks the Bible says, check out this article here.

    “I dislike the NAB, and the KJV. I won't use them. The KJV is too difficult for me to read,…”
    “When it comes to the KJV, I just don't believe that the Textus Receptus is very accurate compared to the much earlier manuscripts that we have today. It was good for its time, but now, on the lower list in terms of accuracy in my opinion.”

    ~ Quotes by CF poster Leevo.​

    Sources:
    Post #1 - Buying a new Bible. Suggestions?
    Post #13 - Buying a new Bible. Suggestions?

    “Why I hate the King James Version of the Bible.”
    “I don’t really hate the King James Version of the Bible. I hate what it represents.”

    ~ Quotes by Anita Ojeda​

    Source:
    Why I Hate the King James Version of the Bible | Anita Ojeda

    That said, the way many people respond to us is astounding. Simply going into a large Christian group on Facebook and saying, “I really like the KJV”, often leads to a flame war. I’ve had a number of people mention this to me over the last few weeks. Even going out of our way to qualify that we are NOT King James Onlyists and giving credit where credit is due to translations like the NASB and the ESV (also popular among the confessionally Reformed) doesn’t appear to douse the flames.”
    ~ Quote by Robert Truelove.​

    Source:
    What's the Deal with All the KJV Hate?
    (Note: I do not agree with Reformed Theology or Calvinism; I am merely quoting him to reveal his experience to you and others).

    There is a MBVO movement.

    A Non-KJB Only Christian gives an account of this kind of movement.
    Check it out in this article here:

    What's the Deal with All the KJV Hate?

    The issue really deals with how we interpret the facts or information given to us.

    #1. How does one view the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus? Has one heard both sides of the stories from both the Modern Scholars viewpoint and the KJB Only believer’s viewpoint?
    #2. How does one view the many changes in Modern Bibles vs. the KJB?
    #3. Are the changes for the worse or for the better when you compare the Modern Bibles vs. the KJB?
    #4. Is there legitimate concern for the KJB Only conspiracies behind Modern Bibles?
    #5. Are the claims against the KJB being the pure Word of God legitimate or merely opinion?
    #6. We see the devil corrupt God’s word in the Garden with Eve. Are we to truly believe that the devil is no longer concerned with corrupting God’s Word anymore? If so, does the Bible talk about how he no longer is able to be allowed to do that by God?
    #7. Which position appears to line up more with what we see in the Bible? OAO, MBVO, KJBO?
    #8. Why is it that when Christians go to college we sometimes hear the stories about how they lose their faith? Could it not be that Modern Scholarship made them to lose faith in God’s Word in that there is no settled Word of God that we can trust?
    #9. Should we be concerned that the first popular Modern bible (NIV) had a sodomite on the committee? Note: This is not the only Modern Bible that has had these kinds of problems.
    #10. How can we trust God’s Word if a Modern Bible translation keeps changing every few years (like the NASB and NIV)?
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2022
  8. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +7,566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I stated back in this thread in post #293 the following.

    There are…

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

    1. KJB only position (We have a perfect bible today).

    2. Only the originals were inspired.

    3. God’s Word exists amongst the thousands of remaining manuscripts (including their many variants) (i.e. the James White view).

    4. All bibles are inspired (i.e. which would include all English bible translations).

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


    #1. Roman Catholic Church View on God’s Word.

    They believe the holy mother church and tradition define what is in the Scripture.
    #2. Liberal View:

    The Bible is full of myths, and legends.
    #3. Neo-Orthodox View

    The real issue is what the Bible teaches, not it’s historical accuracy.
    #4. Fundamentalist View:

    The Faith is established in the Bible despite its many mistakes and errors.​

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Yet, the Bible says,

    “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.” (Isaiah 34:16).
     
  9. Strong in Him

    Strong in Him I can do all things through Christ Supporter

    +6,611
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    If people are in favour of using ONLY modern versions, then it will not be just the KJV they have issue with, but with all old translations - Bishop's Bible, Septuagint, Wycliff, RSV etc.
    Anyone insisting that ONLY the modern versions were reliable, would have a bit of a problem, since we all know that modern translations of the Bible were translated from something.

    Again, I know of no Christian who has ever said "ONLY the GNB/NIV/NRSV/Amplified Bible which I use has the truth of the Gospel."
    Yet folk do it with the KJV - they even diss the older manuscripts in the original languages from which the KJV was translated.
     
  10. tampasteve

    tampasteve Lost in the swamp Staff Member Administrator CF Senior Ambassador Angels Team Supporter

    +6,177
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    US-Republican
    Thank you for your time, I can see you are passionate about the subject. We will not see eye to eye on this, and that is OK with me. I believe your reasoning and conclusions are severely flawed, but you are convinced of them. In the end, that is OK with me, the KJV is a fine translation that teaches the Gospel - the same Gospel I believe is taught in nearly all translations.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • List
  11. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +7,566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Let’s look at Wikipedia.

    [​IMG]

    If you were to look at the words that are highlighted in the screenshot, we can see that Wikipedia states that the NASB is a revision of the American Standard Version (ASV).

    Source:
    New American Standard Bible - Wikipedia

    When we click on the link for words that say, “American Standard Version” (ASV) in the article, we then see the following page:

    [​IMG]

    Source:
    American Standard Version - Wikipedia

    Notice something?

    [​IMG]

    Now, lets go back to the NASB page.

    [​IMG]

    Notice the highlighted words above in this screenshot for the NASB?

    It says, “Novum Testamentum Graece” for the textual basis.

    The highlighted words here are also a link for us to clink on (to learn more about it).

    [​IMG]

    Novum Testamentum Graece - Wikipedia

    Nestle and Kurt Aland.

    Remember I mentioned them before?
    They are the creators of the current Critical Text (28th Edition) we have today (Which is where most of all Modern Bibles come from).

    If you were to scroll down this page, you would see this:

    [​IMG]

    Scrolling down some more we come to an interesting paragraph that I circled, and make a comment on.

    [​IMG]

    In other words, the Nestle & Aland Critical Text 28th Edition agrees with the Westcott and Hort Critical Text by 62.9%. We can see clearly that the NASB is taken from the Nestle and Aland 28th Edition which agrees with the Westcott and Hort Critical text. The NASB also at one time favored the Westcott and Hort text exclusively before it was updated with the Nestle and Aland. Just look at the years the NASB was published vs. when Kurt Aland first published his Critical Text edition.

    But here is where things get really interesting.
    If you were to scroll back up the page a bit, look at the picture below the pic of Kurt.

    [​IMG]

    Who is he?

    He’s a Catholic cardinal.

    [​IMG]

    Source:
    Carlo Maria Martini - Wikipedia

    You can click on his name in the same article for the Nestle and Aland Greek text.
    If you agree with Catholicism, then there is no reason to be concerned, but if you do not agree with Catholic practices, I believe this should concern you. For I do not agree with Catholic practices, and this is one of many reasons why I choose the King James Bible. It is free from Catholic influence.

    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.

    Anyways, this all confirms what I posted before.

    The Nestle and Aland 27th Edition Critical Greek Text is under the direct supervision of the Vatican. Here again is a photo of page 45.

    [​IMG]

    Source:
    The KJB Only versus the Latin Vulgate Only Argument by: Another King James Bible Believer
     
  12. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +7,566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    While I was always KJB as my final Word of authority, there were times in my life I was not always passionate about this topic. It’s because I did not know what I do now.

    All I can do is encourage you to at least keep reading more. You may not agree with it, but at least try to understand the reasons behind why KJB Onlyists believe the way they do. My recent post #671 is one particular interesting point that I think is hard to ignore.

    I can see from your point of view of what I believe is illogical and even ridiculous. But then again, we believe in the ridiculous or miraculous I should say. We believe that a man named Jesus who rose from the dead. Most would say that is ridiculous. But we call it miraculous. We believe we will be caught up in the air and fly up to meet Him. Again, many would see that as ridiculous. But we believe it is miraculous. The King James Bible written in archaic English as being the pure Word of God seems ridiculous to many, too; Especially to believers. It does not sound rational to them. But what if… God did preserve His Words in the KJB? What if the ridiculous is indeed true?
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2022
  13. BeingThere

    BeingThere Member

    144
    +60
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Here we go again; Westcott and Hort have nothing to do with the accuracy of modern biblical translation. It is a fallacy to say that, because they held beliefs which you find offensive (which are actually common), that their work is corrupt. It is also a fallacy to claim any investment made by the Catholic Church in the preservation of scriptural manuscripts is somehow toxic and malevolent.

    • If the KJV is perfect, then it must be explained why it is so.
    • Which position requires the fabrication and maintenance of a narrative superficial to the Bible (a divine... translation?)
    • Which position requires we perpetuate a dying language [1600's English?].
    • Which position forsakes God-endowed reason and scientific fact?
    • What does the Bible say? It speaks of Christ, his commandments, his atonement.
    • Which translation teaches you these things? They all do, but the one you will read is the best translation of them all.
    17 So, I'm telling you this, and I insist on it in the Lord: you shouldn't live your life like the Gentiles anymore. They base their lives on pointless thinking, 18 and they are in the dark in their reasoning. They are disconnected from God's life because of their ignorance and their closed hearts... 20 But you didn't learn that sort of thing from Christ. 21 Since you really listened to him and you were taught how the truth is in Jesus, ... 23 Instead renew the thinking in your mind by the Spirit 24 and clothe yourself with the new person created according to God's image in justice and true holiness.
    (Ephesians 4:17-24, CEB)

    I read the KJV, quote from it, and respect it. It does not contradict, nor is it contradicted by, any modern translation. Needing a physical "sign," people deify a book. Simple as that:

    39 An evil and unfaithful generation searches for a sign, but it won't receive any sign except Jonah's sign.
    (Matthew 12:39, CEB)
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2022
  14. BeingThere

    BeingThere Member

    144
    +60
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
    7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
    (Psalms 12:6, 7, KJV)


    Even if one were to assume words means only the Bible, and not the rest of God's covenant [his promise, his message, etc.], then one shouldn't take preserve to mean petrify. Because that is what the KJV is becoming, a story petrified in archaic language and diction. Which is easier for the modern reader, to pick up a modern translation, or consult dictionaries, commentaries, just for an adequate understanding of a 400 year old book? Here is what the Hebrew actually says to our modern ears:

    6 The LORD's promises are pure, like silver that's been tried in an oven, purified seven times over!
    7 You, LORD, will keep us, protecting us from this generation forever.
    (Psalms 12:6, 7; CEB)

    If anyone insists that this verse is only referring to the written word, the Bible, and the KJV specifically, this is reading into the Bible.
     
  15. ChristianForCats

    ChristianForCats American Baptist

    +1,116
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Democrat
    While looking for a completely free Bible app that offers the NIV translation, I found this page:

    John 1 NIV – John 1 KJV | Biblica

    The punctuation, word order, and vocabulary changes are exactly what they should be in the NIV. Nothing is lost from the KJV translation of John 1 except a completely useless comma and meaningless letters.
     
  16. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +7,566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    The NIV has the word “dragon” in Revelation 13:1, replacing the word “I” [with John speaking] in the King James Bible.

    1 John 5:7 is the only verse clear verse on the Trinity. Its removed in Modern Bibles.

    Colossians 1:14... the blood is taken out.

    Romans 8:1 is chopped in half. the essential truth missing is that we must walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. This truth is removed as a part of having no condemnation in Christ.

    The doctrine of casting out persistent demons by fasting and prayer is removed in Matthew 17:21.
     
  17. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +7,566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Side Note: The TR means Textus Receptus (Which is the line of manuscripts where the King James Bible came from).
     
  18. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +7,566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I believe the King James 1900 Cambridge Edition is the pure Word of God.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    For…

    [​IMG]

    So according to Psalms 12:6-7:
    Why are the Lord's words pure?
    Why are the Lord's words preserved forever?

    Well, I believe one reason is so that we believers today can...

    “...take...the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17).

    So as to...

    Study to show ourselves approved unto God (2 Timothy 2:15).
    And earnestly contend for the faith (Jude 1:3).
    For all Scripture is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

    But how can we be perfect unto all good works if the faith itself is imperfect?
    For faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).

    I don't think all KJB-Onlyists are alike. In fact, I am unlike your average KJB Only Christian. I use Modern Translations to update the 1600’s English, but Modern Bibles are not my final word of authority. I also hold to two possibilities on the KJB, as well.

    Possibility #1. - I believe the KJB to be the pure Word of God for today. But I would not truly know this is a 100% fact unless I met God face to face to confirm such a truth. But I don’t want to doubt any of his words within His Word because I could be wrong. So I will continue to trust all of God’s words.

    Possibility #2. - I believe the KJB at the very least is the most purest Word we have in the English language.
    My stand on the KJB is strong because Modern Bibles cannot be trusted like the KJB can.

    This is just simply not true. The KJB is the most accurate translation available in the English language today. A simple side by side comparison between the KJB vs. Modern Bibles will show you that all Modern Bibles are inferior big time if you were to do an unbiased study and be fair handed about it. Doctrines are changed (see here), commands are changed (see here), the devil's name is placed in Modern Bibles where they do not belong (see here). Modern Bibles make Jesus appear to sin (See point #24 here).

    I glanced at the article and it simply seems to be a quibble over some minor words that does not change the meaning all that much. Also, what manuscripts of the original language is the author comparing his work to? The Critical Text? The Textus Receptus? Not all Greek manuscripts agree with each other.

    Also, in regards to the article: I have a problem with the author's scholarly authority (i.e. Modern Scholarship). Why? Well, 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 folks who go to the Original Languages do so in order to hide a false belief that they cannot defend with the English words in their Bible.

    Modern Scholarship is also a problem because a person does not speak, write, and read Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek fluently (in most cases). 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).

    Anyways, the person of this article who acts like an expert on the Greek can be in error in multiple ways by the previous things I mentioned. But because he sounds like he knows what he is talking about, he can convince people of his priestly magical craft of the original languages so as to make them believe that no perfect Bible exists (Which can then in turn lead some of them to doubt God's Word and fall away from the faith). However, we King James Bible believers simply believe God preserved His Words today according to Scripture and we have a solid foundation to stand upon that does not shift and change like the sands on a beach unlike Modern Bibles that change every few years (See: Psalms 12:6-7, Matthew 24:35).

    Just read this article that refers to Gary Hudson (the author you quoted).

    Response to Gary Hudson

    He does not appear to know Greek. So he is not qualified to be any real expert in Greek on the matter. All he can do is point to Lexicons but that does not prove you are an expert in the language.

    This is simply not true. Look at the NASB here:

    [​IMG]

    Depending on which NASB you have, the NASB has the dragon standing on the seashore instead of John (referring to himself as “I”) in Revelation 13:1.

    As for the ESV:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Then where is your perfect Bible then?
    Do you have one?
    If you don't have one, then how do you determine what is the Word of God and not the Word of God? Do you have a truth detector machine?
    Do you have evidence to prove your case?
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2022
  19. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +7,566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    First, the King James is available in other 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 (พระคัมภีร์ไทย)

    Korean King James Version:
    https://www.amazon.com/Korean-English-Bible-Leather-Golden/dp/B005DPPENA/

    Brazilian Portuguese (the BKJ):
    Bíblia King James Fiel 1611

    Second, it’s actually far more difficult for a person to learn Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Biblical Greek because they are dead languages. Koine Greek has not been a living language for a thousand plus years. 1600’s English existed 400 plus years ago and there are still many words in the English in the King James Bible we do know. With the original languages it is entirely foreign. For the more you go back in time with a dead language, the less likely the people will know such a language. The 1600’s English can be known because there are old dictionaries, Bible dictionaries, and the context in English to help us to understand the archaic words. For the steps involved in knowing the original languages would be more than a person’s lifetime because one would need to know how to speak, write, and read Modern Greek, Modern Hebrew, Modern Aramaic, and then also learn how to fluently read and write their ancient counter parts to be able to properly come close to knowing those kinds of languages.

    Three, if you were to watch Gipp’s videos in defense of the KJB (here), Gipp states Christians can be saved by reading a Modern Bible, but he believes that properly understanding the KJB vs. Modern Bible issue is dealing with growth of a believer’s walk with the Lord. So I believe Mr. Gipp is trying to say that a person who does not have a KJB or they speak another language simply does not have access to the pure Word of God (Whereby their Bible does not contradict itself and it has a more complete set of doctrines, etc.).

    Four, you probably are thinking it is not fair that the Word of God is not perfectly available to all nations. But you have to think that not all nations even have the gospel preached to them yet, either. Is it unfair that certain nations do not know about the gospel today? Surely not. I believe God can make available the gospel to a person who is honestly seeking after God in another nation. For it happened with Cornelius.

    Again, I am unlike your average KJB Only Christian. I am not going to pretend like the KJB is easier to understand or on the same level of understanding as Modern English bibles. I am willing to admit that the King James Bible is very difficult to understand at times because of it’s archaic words. But just because something is difficult to understand does not effect the accuracy of the message behind those words. For Jesus spoke in parables and yet others who are not of the Kingdom did not understand them. Jesus spoke of His death and burial with the disciples but they did not truly understand what He was talking about before the cross on that matter. It’s not that Jesus’ words were less inferior because they were not explained in a better way so that the disciples could perfectly understand.

    So why would God give us archaic words within His Word? Well, Christians are to study to show themselves approved unto God. We are to work hard at figuring out His Word because by doing so… we will appreciate His Word more and value it (unlike if we were simply spoon fed everything).

    But seeing Modern Bibles do not all say the same thing exactly and many times they disagree with each other, they can also cause confusion, as well.

    And think about how they will grow in knowledge and appreciate the English language more by studying the meaning behind archaic words by looking at older dictionaries, or bible dictionaries.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2022
  20. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +7,566
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    You are actually missing the point of:

    #1. The problem of doctrine that is changed in Modern Bibles vs.
    #2. Straining at a gnat over minor quibbles in the King James Bible based on the words of scholars.​

    Your whole argument is the “old is better” and that the scholars say their preferred manuscript evidence (the Critical Text and not the Textus Receptus) should determine whether this verse is in the Bible or not. First, older does not mean better. A pagan religious manuscript could exist before the birth of Christ and be discovered today in some cave or something. So just because something is old does not mean it is true. Paul said during his time that there were those who were corrupting the Word of God (2 Corinthians 2:17). So this means that people could have been making false corrupted copies of the Scriptures soon as the real Scriptures were finished.

    The problem also is your implicit trust of Modern scholarship, too. However, Jesus said beware of the scribes (Luke 20:46). Scribes are those who tran-scribe the Scriptures. This would be the scholar of our day, and yet Jesus is telling us to not blindly trust them. Yet, those who are Anti-KJB Only or against one perfect Bible existing in our language today eat up what scholars say as if they speak the very words of God.

    So the Anti-KJB Only believer’s faith is in the wrong place (i.e. in the scholar), when it should be solely in what God’s Word says alone. That should be our test or benchmark to determine the truth here. So I challenge you to compare the King James Bible vs. the Modern Translations in superiority of doctrine and or purity. Can you defend the Trinity with your Modern Bible that removes 1 John 5:7? What about Romans 8:1? Do you have the full version of that verse to know the entire truth on it? Does it not seem suspicious that this truth is altered in Modern Bibles? What makes you think the devil has changed his tactics in subtly altering God’s Word back in the Garden? Is the devil still not corrupting God’s Word today? See, these are things that you have to ignore in order to make your view that God failed to provide us a perfect Bible for us today. For what teachings do you accept or not accept in the Bible if all bibles have errors in them? How can you truly know you have the correct words of God with no perfect Bible available to you?
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2022
Loading...