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

[klutedavid]

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)?

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

I agree with Catholic apologist here.

 

[SamInNi]

Well... sometimes KJV Onlyism reminds me of the man who draws water from an old well in a leaky bucket and runs home in the hope enough will be left.

To put it another way, fair and robust argumentation won't get any traction when hardline bias colours judgement.

But perhaps the worst impact of this unfortunate rumpus is how it directly insults those sincere believers who grow in the knowledge of Christ through reading and studying their "modern" translations.

Over the decades it's this incontrovertible truth that has bothered me most. Along with many others, I've been using the NKJV, NASB, Amplified Bible and ESV for many years. They have helped lead me into a much deeper understanding of true doctrine and how to apply the fullness of it to my life.

These translations have often strengthened my relationship with God, encouraging true spiritual growth and correcting many of my failings. They have glorified Christ and given Him His proper place as the eternal One in Whom all the fullness of diety dwells.

They have taught me much about true Christ-likeness and the deceitfulness of the flesh. They have enabled me to recognise false teaching and the implications of deceptive half-truths that cause so much damage in the true Church. And so on...

In actual practice then, my appreciation of what God's living Word means to me is not in any way harmed or held back by using these translations (see personal essays below which hopefully will confirm this?).

So in the real world, using the KJV—or indeed modern editions/translations of it!—offers no worthwhile advantages over quality "modern" translations. While that's the kindest way to put it, we can't ignore the reasons why it's definitely not the ideal go-to translation today.

Walking Faith

 

[tampasteve]

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.

Thank you, but no. That is the thing, I do understand the reasons behind why KJV-O believe the way that you do. I was briefly on the side of KJV-O, but it just did not work for me, the evidence and reasons do not square with reality, or my understanding of the way that God has revealed himself throughout time.

God bless, I am out of this conversation. I sincerely hope that you have a wonderful day.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Let’s look at Wikipedia.

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:

Source:
American Standard Version - Wikipedia

Notice something?

Now, lets go back to the NASB page.

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).

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:

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

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.

Who is he?

He’s a Catholic cardinal.

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.

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

Nestle and Aland agreed with Wescott & Hort 62%. That means that they disagreed with 1/3 of their textual criticism. So your statement that the NASB comes from the Wescott & Hort critical text is not accurate and my statement that the NASB did not derive solely from their critical text is exactly right. Rip out 1/3 of your New Testament and that will give you an idea of how much Nestle and Aland agreed with Wescott and Hort. In any case I challenge you to watch your own video Bridge to Babylon starting at 1 hour 5 minutes into the video and look at every one of the verses they that say the modern translations are “omitting words” from and see if those words exist in any Greek text predating the KJV. They never existed in the Bible before the KJV. Do you remember what you quoted to me from Revelation 22? Here I’ll refresh your memory and I’ll even quote it from the KJV so you don’t have any objections to what it’s saying here.

“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: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭22:18-19‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Nestle and Aland agreed with Wescott & Hort 62%. That means that they disagreed with 1/3 of their textual criticism. So your statement that the NASB comes from the Wescott & Hort critical text is not accurate and my statement that the NASB did not derive solely from their critical text is exactly right. Rip out 1/3 of your New Testament and that will give you an idea of how much Nestle and Aland agreed with Wescott and Hort. In any case I challenge you to watch your own video Bridge to Babylon starting at 1 hour 5 minutes into the video and look at every one of the verses they that say the modern translations are “omitting words” from and see if those words exist in any Greek text predating the KJV. They never existed in the Bible before the KJV. Do you remember what you quoted to me from Revelation 22? Here I’ll refresh your memory and I’ll even quote it from the KJV so you don’t have any objections to what it’s saying here.

Read this short article by a Modern scholar.

Has the New American Standard Bible (NASB) 2020 Revision Stepped Away from Its Literal Translation Philosophy?

The old NASB was a simple revision of the RV (or ASV) because it was considered to be too theologically liberally. Maybe your current updated and newest NASB may not be straight from the mouths of Westcott and Hort, but the old NASB was (For sure). For the RV (ASV) is an English edition of Westcott and Hort’s work. It’s a fact and I have shown this to you by Wikipedia itself. The Nestle and Aland is also still called, the Critical Text (now in it’s 28th edition), and Westcott and Hort are the fathers of the Critical Text/ Modern Bible Translation movement after the King James Bible reigned supreme for hundreds of years.

“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: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelation‬ ‭22:18-19‬ ‭KJV‬‬

That’s rich if you believe no perfect Bible exists today and that the Modern scholars of our day are constantly making new changes every few years to both the original languages and to the English translations. So I think they would be under the warning of Revelation 22:18-19, and not the KJB translators. Sure, you can say the Apocrypha was added to the King James 1611, but the Critical Text (The Revised Version or ASV by Westcott and Hort also added the Apocrypha, too. Also, most Christians even during the time of the KJB knew that it was not the Word of God. It was merely added in the middle of the Old and New Testament for historical value. Granted, I do not agree with the Apocrypha and it’s inclusion in 1611, but that is why God’s Word had to be purified seven times (Whereby the Apocrypha was officially removed in the 1900 KJB Cambridge Edition). We see the mention of God’s Word being purified seven times in Psalms 12:6-7. This matches up with the 7 KJB editions since 1611. God’s Word has been purified and settled. But your NASB has not be settled. They are going to make another NASB in the future (if the Lord does not return by then). The Modern Bibles do not agree with each other and the Textual basis (the Critical Text) keeps changing. For why do you think they call it the 28th edition of Nestle and Aland. They are making constant changes. There is no settled Word of God. It’s like you have a shape shifting bible (or a shape shifter bible) as your final Word of authority. Good luck with that. I will trust a Bible that has not be adulterer by Modern scholarship that attacks the Trinity, waters down the blood of Christ, attacks the deity of Christ, removes the doctrine on fasting to cast out persistent demons, etc.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The Nestle and Aland is also still called, the Critical Text, and Westcott and Hort are the fathers of the Critical Text/ Modern Bible Translation movement after the King James Bible reigned supreme for hundreds of years.

The term “critical text” simply means a composition of multiple texts. It’s where someone takes multiple Greek manuscripts and compares them to determine what the majority of them say in order to have a more accurate version. This is necessary because all of the Greek texts are not identical. The Textus Receptus is also a critical text based on about 10 different manuscripts. The composition of the NASB is based on hundreds of manuscripts. The KJV is based on a very small amount of Greek manuscripts compared to the NASB.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That’s rich if you believe no perfect Bible exists today and that the Modern scholars of our day are constantly making new changes every few years to both the original languages and to the English translations. So I think they would be under the warning of Revelation 22:18-19, and not the KJB translators.

As if the KJV hasn’t undergone over 400 changes since it’s first rendition. This isn’t a matter of changing what was originally written it’s about determining what was originally written. The KJV added words that were not even present in the Textus Receptus or any Greek texts. That’s a huge difference.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Thank you, but no. That is the thing, I do understand the reasons behind why KJV-O believe the way that you do. I was briefly on the side of KJV-O, but it just did not work for me, the evidence and reasons do not square with reality, or my understanding of the way that God has revealed himself throughout time.

If indeed you have been exposed to the truth on this matter, then you should share your reasons why and present your case as to what changed your mind (So as to help others). But I understand if you don’t want to talk about it, though.

God bless, I am out of this conversation. I sincerely hope that you have a wonderful day.

Thank you for the blessings in the Lord.
May you have a wonderful day, as well.
Peace be unto you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Sure, you can say the Apocrypha was added to the King James 1611, but the Critical Text (The Revised Version or ASV by Westcott and Hort also added the Apocrypha, too. Also, most Christians even during the time of the KJB knew that it was not the Word of God. It was merely added in the middle of the Old and New Testament for historical value.

I wasn’t referring to the Apocrypha I was referring to added words in the gospel accounts and the epistles.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The term “critical text” simply means a composition of multiple texts. It’s where someone takes multiple Greek manuscripts and compares them to determine what the majority of them say in order to have a more accurate version. This is necessary because all of the Greek texts are not identical. The Textus Receptus is also a critical text based on about 10 different manuscripts. The composition of the NASB is based on hundreds of manuscripts. The KJV is based on a very small amount of Greek manuscripts compared to the NASB.

Textual Criticism started with Westcott and Hort because they simply did not like the Textus Receptus and not because it inferior manuscripts in any way. They introduced worse manuscripts that removed the teaching of the Trinity, attacked the deity of Christ, watered down the blood atonement, etc. because these manuscripts aligned with their heretical beliefs. Your head is in the wrong place. You think more manuscripts means it is better. But if a person put a slow killing poison in different beverages over the years, it does not matter how many beverages there are to prove the goodness of the beverage. The quantity or amount of beverages in use does not prove that those beverages available are truly good, and because more people respect those beverages, but it is the QUALITY of the beverage.

The problem is that you need to have:

#1. Blind faith in what the scholar says.
#2. More manuscript evidence (even if they attack good doctrines).
#3. A shape shifting Word of God (that is never settled).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I wasn’t referring to the Apocrypha I was referring to added words in the gospel accounts and the epistles.

Based on what? The mutilated Westcott and Hort text or the Vatican influenced Nestle and Aland text that is in it’s 28th edition? See, your not getting it. You have a shape shifter bible and not the pure Word of God in your hands. So you cannot borrow from the infallibility view I hold to or a settled Word of God viewpoint that is mine and claim that the gospels have been changed if you have a shape shifter bible. How many editions are there in the Critical Text? 28 so far. How many will there be in a 1,000 years from now? It could be close to 50 more editions. So the edition you are reading now will have changed like a shape shifter. Your NASB? It went through several shape shifting changes over the years. It once was a Westcott and Hort text, and now it has shape shifted to favor a Vatican influenced text. Even a Modern scholar says that the new NASB is not as good as the old one. So how are you going to choose? Maybe this scholar is lying. Maybe the new scholars are lying and their new textual basis has added manuscripts that are corrupted. How do you really know they are being honest? You don’t know that. Your NASB thousands of years from now may be almost completely unrecognizable because you have a shape shifting bible mentality that must bow before whatever the scholar says. But my authority is not in the words of men, but is in the very words of God that have been preserved today. Why do I believe that? Because God said so in His Word in Psalms 12:6-7 and Matthew 24:35.

 

[pescador]

Why can't some people simply accept that the King James Bible is just an English translation, one of many? Where does the idea come from that somehow that particular translation, now more than 400 years old, is the only accurate translation of the ancient sources (none of which are the originals)?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Textual Criticism started with Westcott and Hort because they simply did not like the Textus Receptus and not because it inferior manuscripts in any way. They introduced worse manuscripts that removed the teaching of the Trinity, attacked the deity of Christ, watered down the blood atonement, etc. because these manuscripts aligned with their heretical beliefs. Your head is in the wrong place. You think more manuscripts means it is better. But if a person put a slow killing poison in different beverages over the years, it does not matter how many beverages there are to prove the goodness of the beverage. The quantity or amount of beverages in use does not prove that those beverages available are truly good, and because more people respect those beverages, but it is the QUALITY of the beverage.

The problem is that you need to have:

#1. Blind faith in what the scholar.
#2. More manuscript evidence (even if they attack good doctrines).
#3. A shape shifting Word of God (that is never settled).

Official definition

Textural Criticism-the process of attempting to ascertain the original wording of a text.

Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. In 1512, he began his work on the Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts that he could find to create a critical edition. Then, he polished the Latin, declaring, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin."[2] In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text: "My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense."[3]

Textus Receptus - Wikipedia

I’ll say it again the Textus Receptus is a critical text. Wescott & Hort did not compose the first critical text. I would expect that most likely Jerome composed the first critical text that I’m aware of when he composed the Latin Vulgate. Wescott & Hort- 19th century, Textus Receptus 16th century.

 

[Strong in Him]

The issue, as you well know but do not have the courage to admit, is were these words left out from the Greek or were they never in the Greek in the first place?

If you were still talking to me, I would guess at an answer along the lines of "no one can know the original, and dead, languages; all translators are only guessing. Use the smoke screen of "original autograph only" or "dead languages" to avoid having to say "it seems the KJV might have added something."

The statement that the NIV would like to have left certain books out of the NT - for which you have no evidence, means nothing.
All those books appear in the NIV.

Means nothing. This is in the NIV in Mark 10:45.
So to imply that the NIV doesn't answer the question "why did Jesus come to earth?" is quite simply, false.

Means nothing.
You ask "who appeared in the flesh?" - have you not read the context or are you just unable to understand? God is spoken of in verse 15; who do you think the "he" refers to? How many others do you know who appeared in the flesh, was seen by angels, vindicated by the Spirit and preached among all nations?

That verse is not in my NIV; true. Neither is it in my interlinear Greek NT.
Instead there is a note saying that some Bibles have added the verse.

Cue list of excuses why the KJV cannot have added anything and is perfect.

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

So?

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

So?
The Trinity is still clearly taught - because I know about, and believe it.
Jesus' deity is clearly taught in John 1:1; a verse which is exactly the same as in the KJV.
You clearly cannot answer, or don't like to admit, the fact that the KJV and NIV are identical here, and this is a major Christian doctrine.

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

Not, taken out - added by some ancient manuscripts and not in my interlinear Greek NT. But you won't admit to that.
It still means nothing - the concept of being reconciled/blessed/forgive through Christ's blood is found in Romans 5:9, Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 2:13 and Colossians 1:20.

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.

Again, not taken out; ADDED by other Bibles.
That teaching is found elsewhere in the chapter.

All this says is that there are differences between the KJV and the NIV - we know.
The question is, were those verses/teachings in the Greek and therefore the NIV has left them out, either deliberately or otherwise? Or were they never in the Greek and the KJV translators decided to add them for clarification?
That is not a question in your mind. Your starting point is the KJV is perfect and had nothing added or taken away - even though you won't compare it with the Greek so we can all see for ourselves.

So there is nothing to go on.
Like I said, have the courage to compare the KJV with texts written in the Greek/Hebrew. My guess is that if you were to do that and find that the KJV and the Greek were in agreement, you'd be very quick to shout about it. That you won't do this, but instead criticise the Greek and Greek translators; speaks volumes.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Why can't some people simply accept that the King James Bible is just an English translation, one of many? Where does the idea come from that somehow that particular translation, now more than 400 years old, is the only accurate translation of the ancient sources (none of which are the originals)?

Again, you need to have faith in what the scholar says, and you need to have faith in the existence of lots of manuscripts (which could be corrupted) and you need to have faith in the scholar’s CLAIM that the Modern bibles being based on oldest and best manuscripts are better than the Textus Receptus manuscripts (Which is where we get the KJB). But how do you really know that what they are saying is true? It sounds like blind faith in the scholar to me. Jesus said to beware of the scribes (Luke 20:46). Scribes are those who tran-scribe the Scriptures. This would be the scholar of our day and Jesus is not saying for us to implicitly trust them.

Also, you have a shapeshifter bible. Your original languages manuscripts are like a shapeshifter, and your English bibles are a like a shapeshifter. They keep changing like a shapeshifter every few years. Your Bible 1,000 years from now is not going to be the same one you have today because it will have changed so much. But I have a settled Word of God that does not shape shift or change every few years. A verse you once knew could mean something else in a few years. So your understanding on God’s Word shape shifts. It’s never settled. There is no perfect Bible that is settled and trustworthy like I have.

In addition, my Bible does not remove the clearest teaching on the Trinity, nor does it water down the blood atonement, and nor does it attack the deity of Jesus Christ. The position you hold to is “no Bible is perfect” and so you or somebody else has to sit in the seat of God and determine what God actually said off manuscripts you have no idea of whether or not they are better or not. You take it by blind faith in what the scholar says all because the idea of a perfect Word in the archaic English does not sound appealing to you. That’s the problem. You have to say: Well, God says this in His Word, but God does not say that in His Word. So you have a choose your own adventure Bible that caters to what you like or prefer or what the scholar likes or prefers. Good luck with that. I have a settled Word of God and it is pure in it’s doctrines (i.e. the KJB).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Official definition

Textural Criticism-the process of attempting to ascertain the original wording of a text.

Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. In 1512, he began his work on the Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts that he could find to create a critical edition. Then, he polished the Latin, declaring, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin."[2] In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text: "My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense."[3]

Textus Receptus - Wikipedia

I’ll say it again the Textus Receptus is a critical text. Wescott & Hort did not compose the first critical text. I would expect that most likely Jerome composed the first critical text that I’m aware of when he composed the Latin Vulgate. Wescott & Hort- 19th century, Textus Receptus 16th century.

Yes, there were other textual critics before WH, but Westcott and Hort were the first textual critics to father all Modern bibles we have now. They are included among the Critical Edition (of the Nestle and Aland 28th Edition). Critical to what? The Textus Receptus. It was an attack upon the already established Word of God (the KJB) during that time. Attack upon the Trinity being removed in 1 John 5:7, and an attack upon the deity of Christ, and an attack upon the blood atonement. For WH had heretical beliefs, and their Modern way of thinking went perfectly in line with their Modern Bible they eventually put forth with the Revised Version (Later ASV here in America). Your older NASB is straight out of the Westcott and Hort’s RV. They were heretics and I would not want to be influenced by their false way of thinking by their messing with the Bible. Just learn about their beliefs. These are the fathers of the Modern Translation bibles we have today. Textual Criticism has not changed much since Westcott and Hort. Now we have the Vatican criticizing the Bible. Is that not what they do? They are not Sola Scriptura or Bible alone. In the past, the Catholic used to burn anyone for not having the Scriptures. But today, they have taken a different approach to taking the Word of God out of men’s hands with the Nestle and Aland Critical Text edition. To not see this is to repeat the errors of history.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Based on what? The mutilated Westcott and Hort text or the Vatican influenced Nestle and Aland text that is in it’s 28th edition?

Hate to break it to ya but the Textus Receptus is based on the Vulgate, “the official text of the Roman Catholic Church.”

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Official definition

Textural Criticism-the process of attempting to ascertain the original wording of a text.

Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. In 1512, he began his work on the Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts that he could find to create a critical edition. Then, he polished the Latin, declaring, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin."[2] In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text: "My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense."[3]

Textus Receptus - Wikipedia

I’ll say it again the Textus Receptus is a critical text. Wescott & Hort did not compose the first critical text. I would expect that most likely Jerome composed the first critical text that I’m aware of when he composed the Latin Vulgate. Wescott & Hort- 19th century, Textus Receptus 16th century.

Erasmus was not a direct translator on the KJB translating committee. His work may have been used in the KJB translation but it was not the sole work of Erasmus. Erasmus also rejected many teachings in the Catholic Church, and he was later labeled unfavorable by the Catholic Church and he died among his Protestant friends. To learn more about Erasmus, check out this article here:

Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hate to break it to ya but the Textus Receptus is based on the Vulgate, “the official text of the Roman Catholic Church.”

You are living in a dream world, my friend. There is no factual basis for this claim. The King James is not a carbon copy of the Latin Vulgate or the Wycliffe Bible (that is based on the Latin Vulgate). The King James Bible is based predominantly on the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts. This is why the KJB departs from the Wycliffe translation on passages like Psalms 14:3-4. You can compare the differences here at BibleGateway for this passage.

Psalm 14:3-4 KJV,WYC - They are all gone aside, they are all - Bible Gateway

Here are the facts:

You can learn more about this by checking out the website at Textus Receptus Bibles

You can click on each Bible to learn more.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why can't some people simply accept that the King James Bible is just an English translation, one of many? Where does the idea come from that somehow that particular translation, now more than 400 years old, is the only accurate translation of the ancient sources (none of which are the originals)?

Because someone told them that newer translations “removed” parts of the Bible that were never there in the first place.