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

[BeingThere]

If the books in the Bible were “arbitrarily organized” wouldn’t that mean that our Bible came from men, not from God and is therefore fallible? If we can’t attest to its authorship and compilation how can we attest to its content or the doctrines contained within it?

The answer to this question requires one define the word "inspired," as in inspired of God. To me, if one is inspired of God, he is of the Kingdom of God, a follower of Christ, partaker of His cup; no more and no less. I believe, as all Christians do, that the authors of the books which we read were wise, knowledgeable of spiritual truths, and close to God. These people must have been inspired in their thinking; this is self-evident to anyone who seriously reads these books. The acknowledgement of such divine intelligence does not require of the reader anything more than an open mind and a humble heart; the demonstration of such intelligence requires one follow Christ and assume responsibility, bearing one's cross and giving the only author of Life his full due, which is everything. In this process, the issue of an "inerrant Bible" is never touched.

So, the acknowledgement and practice of the Way of Christ requires no belief in an inerrant book--let alone human authority--as the intelligence and wisdom of God speaks for itself. This is what "inspired by God" truly means: the men behind the writings are inconsequential; what is written is true to those who see it. Therefore, the men behind the organization and canonization of the Bible are also inconsequential. The councils which compiled the Bible, being inconsequential to the divine inspiration of the teachings, therefore served a single purpose, which was to spread the teachings far and wide. They succeeded.

Are the decisions of these men supposed to be inerrant, unmovable? One may argue those decisions benefited humankind. One may also say those decisions bred belief in human institution--an inerrant Bible makes for an inerrant priesthood, an inerrant Church, and perhaps a human being with one foot in the Kingdom, one foot in the pew. I don't make any absolute claims here. I am grateful for the wisdom of ancient men who were inspired by the Truth to share it with others. My concern is only with the Truth laid before me, not with the method of transmission, be it a church, a priest, a book.

Essentially what I am saying is that the "inerrancy" which you say the Bible carries, to me is from the Truth which it communicates, not the truth which it is presupposed to have, as conveyed to me by mortals. This is a vital distinction, because if I am following the commandments simply because I am being told to, under any authority of mind (which all authority is of, until one lives by the spirit), then I am following a law which ultimately brings death:

7 The ministry that brought death was carved in letters on stone tablets. It came with such glory that the Israelites couldn't look for long at Moses' face because his face was shining with glory, even though it was a fading glory. 8 Won't the ministry of the Spirit be much more glorious? 17 The Lord is the Spirit, and where the Lord's Spirit is, there is freedom. 18 All of us are looking with unveiled faces at the glory of the Lord as if we were looking in a mirror. We are being transformed into that same image from one degree of glory to the next. This comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
(II Cor. 3: 7, 8, 17,18; CEB)

If we can’t trust that the Bible is given by God then morality once again becomes subjective and we have no basis for God’s expectations of us.

People do what those around them do. The first bestower of moral law is society, the family, parents, friends: morality is always at first subjective; the books of the Bible explain why certain moral laws are objectively necessary if people want to live with God. Ultimately, if we want to see the truth of these laws, with an eye to life beyond the law, then we will see the demonstration of the law within us and the testimony of the spirit of the law. In no way is an "inerrant Bible" at issue here; the Bible does not reveal the spirit, the spirit exists in the world: spiritual teachings like those in the Bible exist to point the way to our own understanding, which if true will bring with it demonstration [or works].

I don’t see evidence that the books were arbitrarily organized I see a careful process in the Bible’s compilation, I can’t imagine the church would’ve taken such a monumentally important task lightly.

The task was a monumentally consequential one, agreed. However, did God intend for everything which happened within Christianity to unfold exactly how it did? The only way for that to be true is for the Church (and every decision thereof) to be God's inerrant instrument, and for every professing Christian to be one with God; this is not the case. One may instead look for the mark of God in the writings and actions of men, without giving men authority over divine matters. Here is Paul on the inspiration of divine teaching, and the individual's personal and inseparable connection to God's wisdom and truth:

12 Therefore, my loved ones, just as you always obey me, not just when I am present but now even more while I am away, carry out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 God is the one who enables you both to want and to actually live out his good purposes.
(Phil. 2:12,13; CEB)

Note how these verses may also be seen to imply a life without the Bible, the teacher.

 

[trophy33]

To all:

Many misunderstand me when I say that Modern Bibles water down and or remove key doctrines of the faith.

What do I mean by that?

#1. Doctrines are watered down.
#2. Doctrines are removed.

Are the two things above the same thing?
No. They are not. They are two things.

In regards to doctrine being watered down in Modern Bibles:

Well, when I say that the deity of Christ is watered down or attacked (not removed entirely), I am saying that the amount of verses are less in defense for the deity of Christ in Modern Bibles when comparing Modern Bibles next to a pure King James Bible (Cambridge Edition circa. 1900). There is less of witness or testimony. Because of this lesser witness, it makes those self proclaiming Christians who deny the deity of Christ or who deny the Trinity to be able to more easily twist Scripture to their advantage. For obviously 1 John 5:7 plays in beautiful harmony with John 1:1-2, and John 1:14 when you focus on the WORD (i.e. the Living Word, a.k.a. Jesus). For I have talked with a self proclaiming Christian on a Christian forums who basically suggested that Jesus is a demi-god (a created god), and that the Holy Spirit is just another name for the Father. So when they read John 1:1-2 and they reject 1 John 5:7 in their Bible, they are going to continue to continue to have a false view of God. Granted, I am not saying that all believers who have a Modern Scholarship Approach to the Bible and who reject that there is a perfect Bible in existence today.

The other problem with Modern Bibles is that it leads one to think as Catholics do in their unbiblical approach to God’s Word. Catholics long ago in history used to keep the Word of God out of the hands of the layperson and you had to trust by faith solely in what the priests say they thought the Bible meant. Unfortunately, in a dark chapter of Catholic history, they burned anyone for even owning the Scriptures. Sure, I imagine many Catholics today are sad by this happening and they do not agree of the brutality that took place here. But they are not connecting a pattern throughout history in that the Mother Catholic Church does not want a regular person (not a priest) to study the Bible themselves. For in recent years, I have had Catholics tell me that a belief I held to was not correct, and that this is why I should not study the Bible on my own, but I should simply trust their priests on what the Bible says instead (in order to be correct). So I should have faith in the priests and not in what the Bible says. So again, they are taking the Word of God away from me but they are using a different tactic.

The Modern Scholarship Approach to the Bible that says we have no perfect Bible, and says we must trust the scholars in what they say the Bible says is much like the Catholic priesthood. So if the scholar says their ever changing Critical Text is more superior because it is older and better and they have more and better manuscripts today for their text, then the Modern Scholar Follower will simply believe them by faith in what they say as being true or 100% fact. The Modern Scholar Follower is trusting in the scholar by faith like the regular Catholic layperson is following the Roman Catholic mother church by faith in what they say the Word of God means. While it is true that the early apostles (the church) did give the rest of the church the Bible, those of us who are for the “Bible Alone + the Anointing to Understand It,” or “Sola Scriptura” believe the canon of Scripture is closed and that there are no new words we are seeking from God to add to the Bible. But the Sola Scriptura believer who follows Modern Scholars in what they say by faith has fell for a belief put forth by the Roman Catholic Church. Most (not all) Modern Scholarship Followers believe the Trinity not because they read it in the Bible or they can quickly point to a verse that specifically states the Trinity, but they believe the Trinity because their church taught them the truth of the Trinity. For they reject 1 John 5:7 (Which is Scripture or the Bible) and they went to their church to learn that belief. They blindly trust by faith the scholar on what 1 John 5:7 says just as the Catholic person trusts the Catholic priest on what they say the Bible means. So they have moved one step closer to Rome’s way of thinking by Modern Scholarship. This was not always like this. Before Westcott and Hort’s Critical Text, believers had one Bible for hundreds of years that they trusted alone for all matters of faith and practice (i.e. the KJB).

So what about doctrines or commands that are removed in Modern Bibles?

One of my favorite doctrines or commands from God in my Bible is 2 Timothy 2:15. I am told in God’s Word,

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15) (KJB).

“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) (NIV).

The part of the sentence that says, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (i.e. Study to show yourself approved unto God) is removed. This is a key point of what God wants us to know that will properly help us to rightly divide the Word of truth. For God’s people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. No wonder in our last days I have talked with Christians who think that God is more than just following the Bible. So of course, they don’t study it like they should, and more than likely they dislike the KJB and they prefer Modern Bibles (that removes this precious doctrine and command from our Lord). Also, rightly dividing the word of truth is replaced with correctly handles the word of truth. However, not being able to rightly divide vs. handling the word of truth also obscures the understanding, as well. For example: We are to rightly divide the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. For we are New Covenant believers and not Old Covenant believers.

The longer reading of 1 J 5:7 found in the KJV is a medieval addition forced by Vatican (because they have it in their Vulgate and wanted Erasmus to include it into Greek too).

Therefore, the modern Bibles are simply returning to the ancient Bibles we have discovered.

Its not "watering down", its "restoration".

You seem to be a very inconsistent person, saying that the N-A is corrupted because they have a Catholic among their editors, while on the other hand most of your complaints are about the Catholic reading of the 1J5:7 being removed.

 

[BeingThere]

The answer to this question requires one define the word "inspired," as in inspired of God. To me, if one is inspired of God, he is of the Kingdom of God, a follower of Christ, partaker of His cup; no more and no less. I believe, as all Christians do, that the authors of the books which we read were wise, knowledgeable of spiritual truths, and close to God. These people must have been inspired in their thinking; this is self-evident to anyone who seriously reads these books. The acknowledgement of such divine intelligence does not require of the reader anything more than an open mind and a humble heart; the demonstration of such intelligence requires one follow Christ and assume responsibility, bearing one's cross and giving the only author of Life his full due, which is everything. In this process, the issue of an "inerrant Bible" is never touched.

So, the acknowledgement and practice of the Way of Christ requires no belief in an inerrant book--let alone human authority--as the intelligence and wisdom of God speaks for itself. This is what "inspired by God" truly means: the men behind the writings are inconsequential; what is written is true to those who see it. Therefore, the men behind the organization and canonization of the Bible are also inconsequential. The councils which compiled the Bible, being inconsequential to the divine inspiration of the teachings, therefore served a single purpose, which was to spread the teachings far and wide. They succeeded.

Are the decisions of these men supposed to be inerrant, unmovable? One may argue those decisions benefited humankind. One may also say those decisions bred belief in human institution--an inerrant Bible makes for an inerrant priesthood, an inerrant Church, and perhaps a human being with one foot in the Kingdom, one foot in the pew. I don't make any absolute claims here. I am grateful for the wisdom of ancient men who were inspired by the Truth to share it with others. My concern is only with the Truth laid before me, not with the method of transmission, be it a church, a priest, a book.

Essentially what I am saying is that the "inerrancy" which you say the Bible carries, to me is from the Truth which it communicates, not the truth which it is presupposed to have, as conveyed to me by mortals. This is a vital distinction, because if I am following the commandments simply because I am being told to, under any authority of mind (which all authority is of, until one lives by the spirit), then I am following a law which ultimately brings death:

7 The ministry that brought death was carved in letters on stone tablets. It came with such glory that the Israelites couldn't look for long at Moses' face because his face was shining with glory, even though it was a fading glory. 8 Won't the ministry of the Spirit be much more glorious? 17 The Lord is the Spirit, and where the Lord's Spirit is, there is freedom. 18 All of us are looking with unveiled faces at the glory of the Lord as if we were looking in a mirror. We are being transformed into that same image from one degree of glory to the next. This comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
(II Cor. 3: 7, 8, 17,18; CEB)



People do what those around them do. The first bestower of moral law is society, the family, parents, friends: morality is always at first subjective; the books of the Bible explain why certain moral laws are objectively necessary if people want to live with God. Ultimately, if we want to see the truth of these laws, with an eye to life beyond the law, then we will see the demonstration of the law within us and the testimony of the spirit of the law. In no way is an "inerrant Bible" at issue here; the Bible does not reveal the spirit, the spirit exists in the world: spiritual teachings like those in the Bible exist to point the way to our own understanding, which if true will bring with it demonstration [or works].

The task was a monumentally consequential one, agreed. However, did God intend for everything which happened within Christianity to unfold exactly how it did? The only way for that to be true is for the Church (and every decision thereof) to be God's inerrant instrument, and for every professing Christian to be one with God; this is not the case. One may instead look for the mark of God in the writings and actions of men, without giving men authority over divine matters. Here is Paul on the inspiration of divine teaching, and the individual's personal and inseparable connection to God's wisdom and truth:

12 Therefore, my loved ones, just as you always obey me, not just when I am present but now even more while I am away, carry out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 God is the one who enables you both to want and to actually live out his good purposes.
(Phil. 2:12,13; CEB)

Note how these verses may also be seen to imply a life without the Bible, the teacher.

Just to bring this back to the main topic: if one sees the books of the Bible as inspired but not inerrant, then one is free to peruse a modern, lucidly translated rendition of sacred literature and not be thrown into doubt. The Truth is in the spirit of the teaching, not in its letter.

Moreover, this frees me to look to other places for exposition on God's Kingdom: for example, reading the quote under a fellow member's post led me to this tasty bit:

"The cause of sin is the ignorance of what is more valuable." Democrates

 

[pescador]

The answer to this question requires one define the word "inspired," as in inspired of God. To me, if one is inspired of God, he is of the Kingdom of God, a follower of Christ, partaker of His cup; no more and no less. I believe, as all Christians do, that the authors of the books which we read were wise, knowledgeable of spiritual truths, and close to God. These people must have been inspired in their thinking; this is self-evident to anyone who seriously reads these books. The acknowledgement of such divine intelligence does not require of the reader anything more than an open mind and a humble heart; the demonstration of such intelligence requires one follow Christ and assume responsibility, bearing one's cross and giving the only author of Life his full due, which is everything. In this process, the issue of an "inerrant Bible" is never touched.

So, the acknowledgement and practice of the Way of Christ requires no belief in an inerrant book--let alone human authority--as the intelligence and wisdom of God speaks for itself. This is what "inspired by God" truly means: the men behind the writings are inconsequential; what is written is true to those who see it. Therefore, the men behind the organization and canonization of the Bible are also inconsequential. The councils which compiled the Bible, being inconsequential to the divine inspiration of the teachings, therefore served a single purpose, which was to spread the teachings far and wide. They succeeded.

Are the decisions of these men supposed to be inerrant, unmovable? One may argue those decisions benefited humankind. One may also say those decisions bred belief in human institution--an inerrant Bible makes for an inerrant priesthood, an inerrant Church, and perhaps a human being with one foot in the Kingdom, one foot in the pew. I don't make any absolute claims here. I am grateful for the wisdom of ancient men who were inspired by the Truth to share it with others. My concern is only with the Truth laid before me, not with the method of transmission, be it a church, a priest, a book.

Essentially what I am saying is that the "inerrancy" which you say the Bible carries, to me is from the Truth which it communicates, not the truth which it is presupposed to have, as conveyed to me by mortals. This is a vital distinction, because if I am following the commandments simply because I am being told to, under any authority of mind (which all authority is of, until one lives by the spirit), then I am following a law which ultimately brings death:

7 The ministry that brought death was carved in letters on stone tablets. It came with such glory that the Israelites couldn't look for long at Moses' face because his face was shining with glory, even though it was a fading glory. 8 Won't the ministry of the Spirit be much more glorious? 17 The Lord is the Spirit, and where the Lord's Spirit is, there is freedom. 18 All of us are looking with unveiled faces at the glory of the Lord as if we were looking in a mirror. We are being transformed into that same image from one degree of glory to the next. This comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
(II Cor. 3: 7, 8, 17,18; CEB)



People do what those around them do. The first bestower of moral law is society, the family, parents, friends: morality is always at first subjective; the books of the Bible explain why certain moral laws are objectively necessary if people want to live with God. Ultimately, if we want to see the truth of these laws, with an eye to life beyond the law, then we will see the demonstration of the law within us and the testimony of the spirit of the law. In no way is an "inerrant Bible" at issue here; the Bible does not reveal the spirit, the spirit exists in the world: spiritual teachings like those in the Bible exist to point the way to our own understanding, which if true will bring with it demonstration [or works].



The task was a monumentally consequential one, agreed. However, did God intend for everything which happened within Christianity to unfold exactly how it did? The only way for that to be true is for the Church (and every decision thereof) to be God's inerrant instrument, and for every professing Christian to be one with God; this is not the case. One may instead look for the mark of God in the writings and actions of men, without giving men authority over divine matters. Here is Paul on the inspiration of divine teaching, and the individual's personal and inseparable connection to God's wisdom and truth:

12 Therefore, my loved ones, just as you always obey me, not just when I am present but now even more while I am away, carry out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 13 God is the one who enables you both to want and to actually live out his good purposes.
(Phil. 2:12,13; CEB)

Note how these verses may also be seen to imply a life without the Bible, the teacher.

Excellent, informative post! Thanks!

 

[Strong in Him]

Well, when I say that the deity of Christ is watered down or attacked (not removed entirely), I am saying that the amount of verses are less in defense for the deity of Christ in Modern Bibles when comparing Modern Bibles next to a pure King James Bible (Cambridge Edition circa. 1900). There is less of witness or testimony.

It doesn't matter.
Even if no other verses in the modern translations say that Jesus was God, the Jews knew that this was what Jesus was claiming, John 8:58-59, John 10:33. Also see Mark 2:7.
But there ARE other verses - John 1:1, John 17:5, Colossians 1:15-16, Hebrews 1:2-3, 1 John 1:1-2.
It doesn't matter if the KJV has one or two more, the verses are still there; you believe them or you don't.

Because of this lesser witness, it makes those self proclaiming Christians who deny the deity of Christ or who deny the Trinity to be able to more easily twist Scripture to their advantage.

I'm sorry, but that is an illogical argument.
People who want to twist the Scriptures and make them say something that they don't say, will do so, however many verses you show them to the contrary. There are no verses at all which say that Jesus was supposed to get married while he was on earth, and therefore failed in his mission - but that's what the Moonies claim, and believe.
And, with respect, there is one verse which says that the word of God is LIKE silver that is purified 7 times - and that's all it has taken for you to claim that the word of God needed to be purified 7 times, which fits with the 7 revisions of the KJV between 1611 and 1900.

For obviously 1 John 5:7 plays in beautiful harmony with John 1:1-2, and John 1:14 when you focus on the WORD (i.e. the Living Word, a.k.a. Jesus).

I'm glad you're finally acknowledging that Jesus is THE Word of God.
John 1:2 and John 1:14 are in modern Bible translations also,.

For I have talked with a self proclaiming Christian on a Christian forums who basically suggested that Jesus is a demi-god (a created god), and that the Holy Spirit is just another name for the Father.

People believe all sorts of things.
JWs and Mormons call themselves Christians.

But the point here is that a Modern Bible will give a Trinity denier more of an excuse to hold to their false view of God.

Will it?
If someone doesn't believe, or want to believe, in the Trinity, they won't.
Even if they read 1 John 5:7 in the KJV they would probably claim that it meant that the Father, Son and Spirit are one in purpose. Just as you may have a football team made up of different players with different gifts, but their ONE purpose is to win the game.

The Pharisees in Jesus' day who didn't want to believe in him did not do so even when they saw him healing people - they said that he did it by the power of Beelzebub (devil.)
They didn't believe in him when they saw Lazarus walking out of his tomb - they tried to kill him again, and Jesus. The authorities didn't believe the disciples when they taught that Jesus was alive - they bribed the soldiers to say that they had stolen/moved the body.

So someone who doesn't want to/can't believe the Trinity is unlikely to do so on the strength of one verse.

The other problem with Modern Bibles is that it leads one to think as Catholics do in their unbiblical approach to God’s Word.

Taking one verse out of context and using it to say something that David never said nor intended, is an unbiblical approach to God's word.

Catholics long ago in history used to keep the Word of God out of the hands of the layperson and you had to trust by faith solely in what the priests say they thought the Bible meant.

Whereas today, Bibles are widely available in any bookshop and we have a vast wealth of resources to help us understand what it means. Wise preachers today encourage people to read and study Scripture for themselves and not just accept what other people say.
What might have happened 400 or 500 years ago is scarcely relevant to what happens now.

The Modern Scholarship Approach to the Bible that says we have no perfect Bible, and says we must trust the scholars in what they say the Bible says is much like the Catholic priesthood. So if the scholar says their ever changing Critical Text is more superior because it is older and better and they have more and better manuscripts today for their text, then the Modern Scholar Follower will simply believe them by faith in what they say as being true or 100% fact.

I have no idea what any of that means.
It seems to boil down to, "modern scholars have got it wrong; KJV scholars got it right (with documents that they never had) and were perfect. Scholars cannot be trusted, unless they are KJV scholars."

So what about doctrines or commands that are removed in Modern Bibles?

That's the problem - you have to say that they were removed, because you cannot, and will not, consider for even 1 second that the KJV may have added them.
You have staked your faith, and your life, on the KJV's perfection; of course you are not going to consider anything else.

One of my favorite doctrines or commands from God in my Bible is 2 Timothy 2:15. I am told in God’s Word,

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15) (KJB).

That's not a command from God, that was Paul's advice to Timothy.
Yes, it's good advice and can be followed by those who are also Christ's followers today - but it is not doctrine, nor a command.

No wonder in our last days I have talked with Christians who think that God is more than just following the Bible.

?? Well of course he is; what's your point?
God reveals himself in the Bible, the Bible tells us about being reconciled to God and the possibility of a relationship with him. But our Almighty, all powerful, all knowing God is more than the Bible - God is far greater than the words on a page.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The only reason the KJV exists is because the Geneva Bible had a lot of anti-monarchy footnotes in it, so King Jimmy had another bible translated with no such anti-King commentary.

While not taking into account at looking at the larger picture of GOD slowly purifying His Word over the years through history so as to preserve His words with the eventual final purified settled Word of God with the KJB 1900 Cambridge Edition: The outward historical reason why the 1611 King James Bible came into existence was because the Puritans believed that the Church of England was too similar to the Roman Catholic Church and that they should eliminate ceremonies and practices not rooted in the Bible. The Geneva Bible was the most popular among reformers (the Puritans) at the time of James’ accession. But its circulation threatened the Anglican bishops. Not only did the Geneva Bible supplant their translation (the co-called Bishops’ Bible), but it also appeared to challenge the primacy of secular rulers and the bishops’ authority. In 1604: The idea was proposed at a conference of scholars at Hampton Court by a Puritan, named John Rainolds. Rainolds hoped that James would turn his face against the Bishops’ Bible, but his plan backfired when the King insisted that the new translation be based on it and condemned the “partial, untrue, seditious” notes of the Geneva translation.

Sources used:
why were the puritans unhappy with the church of england? - Lisbdnet.com
How the King James Bible Came to Be

 

[seeking.IAM]

...The KJV was made under the supervision of Anglican Church and of English king, though.

You are welcome.

 

[trophy33]

You are welcome.

I do not use the KJV, there have been different reformation translations in the central Europe

But many English colonies have been certainly grateful for your work.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It’s called the 1611 preface, to google it.

Most Modern Scholarship Followers love to attack KJB Only because of the 1611 KJB preface. However, I don’t see how the 1611 KJB Only preface is any way incriminating. The very disciples of Jesus (who wrote Scripture like Peter, and John) did not know what Christ was talking about before the cross when He spoke of His death and resurrection. Yet, we know God was working in Peter and John’s life even before the cross. Yet, they did not have perfect knowledge yet. So the idea that the 1611 KJB translators had to be in on God’s plan to preserve His Words eventually through time by their work is not a valid argument. God can still use people despite their imperfect knowledge.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There are a lot of KJV only adherents that have decided that the 1611 AV is the world’s only inspired and inerrant translation, to the point that where it differs from the original Greek or Hebrew, it corrects the original MSS, instead of Vice versa.

There is much I disagree with my KJB Only brethren on.
Some KJB Only Christians are…

#1. 1611 KJB Only (Which does not make sense because most of them do not read from this version).
#2. 1769 KJB Only (Note: I do not think many of them know which version this really is).
#3. 1900 KJB Only (They are actually are of the differences within the KJB and follow the right KJB).

I am a 1900 Cambridge Edition KJB Only Christian.

 

[Strong in Him]

While not taking into account at looking at the larger picture of GOD slowly purifying His Word over the years through history so as to preserve His words with the eventual final purified settled Word of God

God is pure.
He does not need to purify his words - they were never impure to begin with.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

One profound piece of Scripture that makes me to trust in a perfect or pure Word is the following:

Proverbs 30:5-6 KJB
“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Many do not think the Word is enough.

 

[Strong in Him]

Proverbs 30:5-6 KJB
“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

Exactly.
So his word does not need purifying - you've just said so yourself.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

God’s words spoken directly are pure of course. The Scriptures Moses had written was pure to begin with because they were divinely inspired by God. The Scriptures written by the apostle Paul were also pure to begin with because they were also divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Psalms 12:6-7
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

Psalms 12:6 paints a picture or an analogy of God’s final and perfected pure words by comparing them with an analogy we would understand in the real world. The analogy or real world example is silver being tried in a furnace of earth with it being purified seven times. The idea is to show that seven purifications was a way of showing absolute purity of God’s words (the final result).

By 1604: Seeing God is working with men later in time (with the world becoming worse), and God desires faith from men, His Word was purified seven times by the hands of men through history to show forth the final result or product of God’s pure words in the 1900 KJB Cambridge Edition. From the 1611 to the 1900, it is seven major editions (or purifications).

Note: The KJB translation began in 1604 and was completed seven years later (1611). By the way, seven is God’s special number.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To everyone:

The problem is that Modern Scholarship Followers do not believe there is a pure or perfect Bible in any language today. They believe only the originals were perfect or pure. But my Bible says every Word of God is pure. So there has to be a pure Word of God in existence somewhere that I can read from.

 

[chad kincham]

God is pure.
He does not need to purify his words - they were never impure to begin with.

Yep. Scripture says Gods word is already as pure as gold refined seven times - and doesn’t say it needs purified seven times.

 

[BeingThere]

While not taking into account at looking at the larger picture of GOD slowly purifying His Word over the years through history so as to preserve His words with the eventual final purified settled Word of God with the KJB 1900 Cambridge Edition: The outward historical reason why the 1611 King James Bible came into existence was because the Puritans believed that the Church of England was too similar to the Roman Catholic Church and that they should eliminate ceremonies and practices not rooted in the Bible. The Geneva Bible was the most popular among reformers (the Puritans) at the time of James’ accession. But its circulation threatened the Anglican bishops. Not only did the Geneva Bible supplant their translation (the co-called Bishops’ Bible), but it also appeared to challenge the primacy of secular rulers and the bishops’ authority. In 1604: The idea was proposed at a conference of scholars at Hampton Court by a Puritan, named John Rainolds. Rainolds hoped that James would turn his face against the Bishops’ Bible, but his plan backfired when the King insisted that the new translation be based on it and condemned the “partial, untrue, seditious” notes of the Geneva translation.

Sources used:
why were the puritans unhappy with the church of england? - Lisbdnet.com
How the King James Bible Came to Be

God's word cannot be frozen in time, veiled from future generations by human language barriers; this simply cannot be something God would want. Therefore, his Word must be something other than the printed word. If his Word is perfect, then imperfect words cannot be his Word. Words can only steer us in his direction. The best navigator is one that knows the territory and speaks your language--a lucid, modern translation of the Bible.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yep. Scripture says Gods word is already as pure as gold refined seven times - and doesn’t say it needs purified seven times.

There appears to be a misunderstanding. Again, nowhere am I saying that when God speaks directly to others by His voice that such words are imperfect whereby they need to be purified seven times. Nowhere am I suggesting that the words of Scripture when first written (the originals) need to be purified seven times because they are inspired directly by the Holy Spirit and are perfect words.

The analogy or painted picture in Psalms 12:6 is that God’s words are so pure that they are compared to silver being tried in a furnace and purified seven times. It gives us the understanding just how perfect His words are. This is the first and primary meaning of the verse.

What I am saying is that Psalms 12:6 has a secondary meaning. This secondary meaning is speaking prophetically of the analogy used to describe the 7 major different editions of the KJB in the future. Just as there are Messianic prophecies, I believe there are KJB prophecies.

1611 is recognized in God's Holy Word (involving numbers).

+.............Luke 4:4
+........Matthew 4:4
+ Deuteronomy 8:3
________________
= ..................16:11

1 column (green) added up together in a straight line down = 16.

One column (red) added up together in a straight line down = 11.

This is a total of 16:11 or 1611.

The year 1611 (Which is a major change in human history) with the bringing in of the King James Bible.

Luke 4:4 says,
"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."​

Matthew 4:4 says,
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Deuteronomy 8:3 says,
"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."​

Now, if this was the only occurrence of amazing things like this in the King James Bible, I would maybe be skeptical. But there are tons more things like this which could potentially lead a person to rock back and forth silently in a corner somewhere in the awe of God’s Word.

My point is that the prophetic side of Psalms 12:6 has been fulfilled with the King James Bible 1900 Cambridge Edition. But the Modern Scholarship Follower does not truly believe that any Bible today is pure or perfect and therefore, they do not believe His words are pure as Scripture says. They may claim their Bible is the Word of God, but it simply isn’t. They are holding to Bibles that are partially pure.

 

[chad kincham]

There appears to be a misunderstanding. Again, nowhere am I saying that when God speaks directly to others by His voice that such words are imperfect whereby they need to be purified seven times. Nowhere am I suggesting that the words of Scripture when first written (the originals) need to be purified seven times because they are inspired directly by the Holy Spirit and are perfect words.

The analogy or painted picture in Psalms 12:6 is that God’s words are so pure that they are compared to silver being tried in a furnace and purified seven times. It gives us the understanding just how perfect His words are. This is the first and primary meaning of the verse.

What I am saying is that Psalms 12:6 has a secondary meaning. This secondary meaning is speaking prophetically of the analogy used to describe the 7 major different editions of the KJB in the future. Just as there are Messianic prophecies, I believe there are KJB prophecies.

1611 is recognized in God's Holy Word (involving numbers).

+.............Luke 4:4
+........Matthew 4:4
+ Deuteronomy 8:3
________________
= ..................16:11

1 column (green) added up together in a straight line down = 16.

One column (red) added up together in a straight line down = 11.

This is a total of 16:11 or 1611.

The year 1611 (Which is a major change in human history) with the bringing in of the King James Bible.

Luke 4:4 says,
"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."​

Matthew 4:4 says,
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Deuteronomy 8:3 says,
"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."​

Now, if this was the only occurrence of amazing things like this in the King James Bible, I would maybe be skeptical. But there are tons more things like this which could potentially lead a person to rock back and forth silently in a corner somewhere in the awe of God’s Word.

My point is that the prophetic side of Psalms 12:6 has been fulfilled with the King James Bible 1900 Cambridge Edition. But the Modern Scholarship Follower does not truly believe that any Bible today is pure or perfect and therefore, they do not believe His words are pure as Scripture says. They may claim their Bible is the Word of God, but it simply isn’t. They are holding to Bibles that are partially pure.

The major problem with such logic, is the claim that no one had a pure word of God during all the centuries from Moses to the 17th century and God finally was able to do it with the help of human bible translators.

Why was the Old Testament never purified?

Why is God so ineffective that it took seven tries to finally get the Bible just right?

And what about the entire non-English speaking world? They don’t get to have a perfect bible?

There’s no such thing as a perfect translation, or an inspired inerrant translation. Only the original MSS were inspired and inerrant.

So enlighten us with a couple of examples of the editing done to the seventh revision that purified and perfected any doctrine, please.

Shalom