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

[Bible Highlighter]

The major problem with such logic, is the claim that no one had a pure word of God during all the centuries

Again, you misunderstand me, my friend. I am claiming that the pure Word of God existed throughout all of time but it existed in different forms. Here is a graphic I created to help you see where I am coming from.

Side Note:

Although, the early church continued on beyond the giving of Revelation to John, when I speak of the early church in the graphic above, I am referring to the early apostles while Scripture was being formed. God’s Word is forever settled in Heaven. So God knew of the canon of Scripture long before it was completed with Revelation.

In between the time of the close of the canon of Scripture (with the writing of the scroll of Revelation), and before the Holy Bible was given to the world in English in it’s pure form with the KJB 1900 Cambridge Edition, the Word of God perfectly existed in scattered Textus Receptus Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (scrolls).

To help give you a feel for the time period right after Revelation and yet long before the KJB was settled in 1900 later in the future, check out the Christian movie called:

Polycarp:

Watch Polycarp | Prime Video

Why was the Old Testament never purified?

Sometimes God does things that are new (even though He already prophesied about those new things). The Incarnation was New at the time it happened. It was a unique event in history with the Living Eternal Word being made flesh. Seeing there is a symbiotic relationship between the Living Word and the Communicated Word (Check out the 41 verses in this thread here), it makes sense that if the entrance of the Living Word was unique, then there should be a special unique entrance for the final Communicated God’s Word (i.e. the Holy Bible). For the Old Testament alone was not God’s final words to man.

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

“Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” (1 Corinthians 1:25).

Why didn’t God just send Jesus right away to die for our sins soon after Adam and Eve died spiritually?
Granted, from God’s perspective, the Lamb was slain since the foundation of the world.
But our lack of understanding or logical thinking is not always in line with God’s way of thinking.

Now, that said, God could have brought about a perfect Bible right away if He wanted to, but that would kind of negate the whole faith thing that Jesus was looking for. Remember, Jesus told Thomas, “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” (John 20:29).

God wants you to believe His Word by faith in Psalms 12:6-7 in that His words are purified seven times.

But most who are Modern Scholarship Followers just believe the scholar in what they say by faith instead. However, God wants us to have faith in HIS WORD and not in scholars. For Jesus said, beware of the scribes (Luke 20:46).

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

Not all the countries of the world have the gospel message yet. Is it unfair that they don’t have the gospel now? Surely not. Besides…

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/

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

There’s no such thing as a perfect translation, or an inspired inerrant translation

In the Bible: We can see a pattern of God preserving copies of His Word, and not the original autographs:

(a) Moses destroyed the original 10 Commandments on tablets of stone (the original autograph) (Exodus 32:19), and yet a copy was perfectly made to replace it (Exodus 34:1-4).

(b) King Jehoiakim burns the scroll of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:22-23), but God had Jeremiah make another copy (Jeremiah 36:27-28).

(c) Proverbs 25:1 says, “These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.” (Proverbs 25:1).​

In the New Testament, Philip heard the Ethiopian eunuch read from a manuscript of Isaiah.

“And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?” (Acts of the Apostles 8:30).​

Although Scripture does not specifically say this was a copy of Isaiah, and not the original autograph of Isaiah, logic dictates that the most plausible explanation is that the Ethiopian eunuch had a copy of a manuscript of Isaiah (and not the original). For the odds of him just happening to have the original would seem highly unlikely.

Philip calls this copy of Isaiah he possessed as Scripture.

“Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.” (Acts of the Apostles 8:35).​

2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
So the copy of this Scripture was inspired by God.

So the belief of “OAO (Original Autograph Only) Proponent” that says that we need to look to the original autograph because it is perfect, and the copies are flawed and full of errors is unbiblical. Believers in God's Word can trust that God has preserved a copy of His Word for us today that is perfect (Which would be consistent in the way God operates involving the preservation of His Word). This then leads us to conclude that there must be a perfect Bible that we can find today.

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

Shalom

The Pure Cambridge Edition is the seventh major purification revision of the King James Bible.

“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.” (Psalm 12:6-7).

Just as there are seven recognised purifications of the Protestant English Bible, so there are seven major editions of the King James Bible which are in a succession of purification. With the English Bibles it began with Tyndale, and the text and translation was finalised in the King James Bible. With the editions, counting begins from the first one.

PURIFICATION ONE: The First 1611 Edition was the first printed representation of the King James Bible, which presented for the first time the gathering of all that went before it, from the other English translations, the original languages and other sources. However, this first edition suffered because of printers’ typographical errors.

In 1611 the language was not standardised, and certain amount of work was required to regularise the AV, which only took place at a later stage.

PURIFICATION TWO: The Second 1611 Edition was the second printed representation of the King James Bible, which corrected the first edition, lest any reading of the AV from the first should thought to be correct when it was a typographical error. However, this second edition, while a purification, also suffered because of printers’ typographical errors. This would lead to another problem: was a difference in the Second 1611 Edition a typographical error or a deliberate correction?

PURIFICATION THREE: The third major edition of the King James Bible, and the third purification took place in the 1613 Edition. This 1613 Edition resolved what was a typographical error in either of the two editions before it, though of course, the 1613 Edition made mistakes of its own. But with these three, already there had been much testimony as to what was the actual text of the King James Bible. When Oxford reprinted the First 1611 Edition in 1833, they made particular reference to differences among the First Edition, Second Edition and 1613 Edition.

Over the years, the London Printers made various runs of various sizes of Bibles, each edition with slight errors or variations.

PURIFICATION FOUR: In 1629, Cambridge University Press, by its power of “Cum Privilegio”, presented its own edition of the King James Bible. The first Cambridge Edition of 1629 was the product of a concerted revision which took place at Cambridge, taking into account the whole array of printed editions beforehand, and being a culminating work to begin a long history of the presentation of a much more typeset accurate text and authority in presentation. The beginnings of the standardisation of the language were first manifested in the 1629 Edition too. Thus, the fourth major edition in the succession of the purification of the King James Bible.

PURIFICATION FIVE: In 1638, by order of King Charles I, the King James Bible was revised once again at Cambridge. Two surviving translators are known to have taken part, as well as the learned Puritan, Joseph Mede. They also had recourse to the Translators’ Master Copy. This edition, which brought in more standardisation, and other careful corrections, became the standard edition upon which all Bible publishers began to use as the basis of the King James Bible. The 1638 Edition contained some misprints too.

With the advance of history and all the various factors that occurred, numerous King James Bible editions appeared over the years, some specialised with various marginal material. The Puritans accepted the 1638 Edition of the KJB. Oxford began printing Bibles as well. Bishop Lloyd’s revision of 1701 was so botched by the press that his edition did not make real impact. In the 1750s, there was a general movement toward the standardisation of the English language. Thomas Paris (sometimes wrongly attributed to F. S. Parris) edited the King James Bible at Cambridge in 1762. This grand revision was thwarted by many copies being burnt during a warehouse fire, and others were damaged by water when the fire was doused.

PURIFICATION SIX: In 1769, Blayney completed editing the King James Bible, and it was printed at Oxford. What Blayney discovered, in furthering Paris’ work, was that Paris had missed numerous things in his corrections. And so Blayney had the credit of standardising the King James Bible, which became the basis of all King James Bible editions afterward to the present time. This sixth major purification was concerned with standardising the language, and was concerned with making many corrections to various typographical errors that had appeared in the King James Bible over the years. It took into account various worthy editions which came before it.

However, the 1769 Edition was not final: one of the editions printed that year was more perfect than another, and various errata appeared. While London soon adopted the 1769 text, it required a minor edit in 1817 D’Oyly and Mant at Oxford, and the passing until about 1835 before Cambridge printed its Bibles based on the 1769 Edition. And Cambridge ensured that it did not reproduce the novelties of spelling that Oxford had always had. So the 1769 Edition was perpetuated through the reign of Queen Victoria, in the three Guardians, namely, the Oxford, London and Cambridge succession of editions. As time progressed, very slight adjustments were made in all their editions, and at times some sort of alignment occurred to bring a slight uniformity between Cambridge and Oxford.

In the second half of the nineteenth century, the idea that there should be some sort of revision of the King James Bible had gained momentum. Of course, “revision” meant different things to different people. Some thought that it would mean correcting a few errors and perhaps updating a few archaic words. Others thought about revising the underlying Textus Receptus. Others thought a bit more, and of course, history shows how far away the Revised Version really was from anything to do with the King James Bible.

Scrivener also, on the basis of a new theory, decided to edit the King James Bible supposing that the Second 1611 Edition had been printed first, and that the First 1611 Edition typographical errors were really were “corrections” of the Second, and by an unusual method he also revised spellings and so on, producing a “classical edition” like one would produce by textual criticism of Shakespeare. Scrivener’s edition was too different for the normal conservative or evangelical Christian, and although it was used in some commentaries, it was never taken as the normal Cambridge text.

Considering what outcry the Revised Version had caused, and that Scrivener’s Edition was being rejected by scholars such as W. Aldis Wright, Cambridge embarked on a quiet and very conservative revision.

PURIFICATION SEVEN: Around the year 1900, the scholarly and thoroughly anti-modernist H. A. Redpath (parson who moved to London, Septuagint concordance editor, Oxford lecturer, held a position in Swete’s Society of Sacred Study, wrote for the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and became examining chaplain to the Bishop of London) edited the King James Bible, adding the pronunciation scheme, and this was consequently printed at Cambridge and by William Collins in Scotland. This edition made various corrections to the 1769-following Cambridge Edition of the late Victorian Era, probably with reference to Scrivener’s work, but with consultation of other editions, most notably the First 1611 Edition. Numerous corrections included the spelling of names, for which the most inexactness had been allowed in the Bible, probably because of the complexity of them. Other corrections, which are defended to this day, were the restoration of “or” in Joshua 19:2, “whom ye” in Jeremiah 34:16 and “flieth” in Nahum 3:16.

It was on the basis of the general acceptance of the Cambridge Edition as the standard or superior presentation of the King James Bible among the host of editions that may have appeared or been contemporary with the modern King James Bible only movement, and with the further and exacting studies into the textual criticism of the Bible, including reference to (but not reliant upon) Norton’s studies, and with the advent of worldwide dissemination of King James Bible texts by the internet, and by the utilisation of the developments in word processing technology, and with providentially supplied factors and events and most importantly revelation from the Spirit, the Pure Cambridge Edition has been presented in its correct form, with complete reference to the existing extant historical printed editions of it, resulting in a standard text of the Pure Cambridge Edition without any variation and free from all particular accidental typographical errors.

Source used for the seven purifications of the King James Bible:
www.bibleprotector.com

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe the King James 1900 Cambridge Edition is the pure Word of God.

For…

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).

For the Holy Bible is the basis for all matters of faith and practice.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

There are certain scholars who attempt to make some of the words pass away. Nevertheless, the Bible promises, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. ... But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” (1 Peter 1:23) (1 Peter 1:25).

Source:
https://www.bibleprotector.com/GUIDE_TO_PCE.pdf

 

[Bible Highlighter]

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
(1 Thessalonians 2:13).

 

[Strong in Him]

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).

No, it isn't.
Silver that has been purified 7 times would be completely and totally pure and flawless. God's word is like that - pure and flawless.
It is the SILVER that is refined 7 times, not God's word. The silver would have to be refined 7 times to get it as pure as the word of God.

Elsewhere, we are told that God's word is greater than Gold. Gold is greater, and more valuable, than silver.
But there is no contradiction, David is simply comparing expensive, precious metals to God's word.
However precious gold and silver are, however much they are purified - God's word is more precious and purer. Silver is, after all, a man made metal. God's word is eternal, it was with us long before silver.

Nowhere does Scripture say that God's word will need to be purified 7 times and that this will happen between 1611 and 1900. Such an idea is ridiculous. Did David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jesus and the disciples have God's impure word? Were the scrolls that Jesus read from in Luke 4 imperfect? Were the prophecies that he came and fulfilled incomplete or corrupt?
No.
Sorry, but whoever taught that the silver that was purified 7 times in Psalm 12:6 is a prophecy that corresponds to the KJV having 7 revisions has completely misunderstood the verse and/or is seeing what they want to see. If they were doing this deliberately, one might almost say that they were twisting the Scriptures.

I am quite sure you are wise enough to realise that a verse which says, " God's word is like silver purified 7 times", does not mean, "like silver, God's word has to be purified 7 times."
If you don't, then either it is your understanding that is at fault, or your Bible translation does not make it as clear as it could.

 

[Strong in Him]

Again, you misunderstand me, my friend. I am claiming that the pure Word of God existed throughout all of time but it existed in different forms. Here is a graphic I created to help you see where I am coming from.

God does not ONLY speak today through the written word.
He speaks through the beauty of his creation, through other people who are also made in his image, through music, worship, art, poetry, through his Holy Spirit and, very occasionally, audibly (to me, anyway.)
God inspires people, gives gifts of prophecy, teaching, evangelism, preaching, and speaks through those. David had a gift of writing poetry and music - and the result of this is the Psalms. There have been, and are, many great hymn writers who write about Jesus, the Gospel and Gospel truths, and which are sung, even by non Christians.
God has also sent angels, dreams and visions to speak to people.

 

[Strong in Him]

the Pure Cambridge Edition has been presented in its correct form, with complete reference to the existing extant historical printed editions of it, resulting in a standard text of the Pure Cambridge Edition without any variation and free from all particular accidental typographical errors.

ALL Bibles have added to the originals and include things that weren't there - chapter and verse divisions and chapter headings.
Mark did not write and think, "ok, that's enough for chapter one, time for chapter 2". Luke did not think, "I think I'll call this section the "Magnificat" (which is Latin, and he wrote in Greek), or "the sermon on the mount". All these were ADDED by translators/editors.
I'm not even sure there was any punctuation in the originals; if that is true, even basic commas, full stops, semi colons etc were added.
Spelling has always changed, and still does, even between English speaking countries. Americans write Savior, favor, color etc, whereas in the UK we write Saviour, favour, colour.

So, given that punctuation was, most likely, ADDED to the manuscripts and that spelling has changed and continues to do so, how can you say that any Bible is standard?
The KJV certainly does not have standardised language - not one speaks, writes or spells that way today; not even you. If the language, spelling etc of the KJV was perfect and God inspired, shouldn't you be using it today? You speak, and write in, language that everyone uses and can understand; if you didn't, your posts/threads would probably take you at least twice as long to write while you worked out how to write them in 17th century English.

The evidence that none one uses KJV language today is seen in every single post on this forum - and in fact in everything that is written; books, newspapers and so on.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Actually sola scriptura posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. It has nothing to do with the actual words used in the source and/or destination languages. Rather, it is the meaning of the texts that is infallible. That is why it is important to use a translation written in one's native language for the clearest understanding.

I'm sure you're aware that a) the original texts don't exist; all that exist are copies and b) it is impossible to have an actual word-for-word translation of the ancient documents. There are simply too many differences of vocabulary, word tenses, idioms, etc. between ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek (three different languages) and English.

Using the King James translation, written in a dead language, a form of English that is no longer in common use, makes it more difficult to understand the meaning.

If the King James Englyshe is so great, forsooth, why doest thou not write in that archaic tongue when thou posteth in this forum?

By adding words that do not appear on any previous manuscripts they are going from what the Bible did say to now what the Bible never said. Hence sola scriptura has been thrown out the window. In every previous manuscript of the Old Testament Elhanan killed Goliath in 2 Samuel 21:19 in the KJV he killed the brother of Goliath. This is just one example of the disappearance of sola scriptura because the translators thought it was an error in the scriptures.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

By adding words that do not appear on any previous manuscripts they are going from what the Bible did say to now what the Bible never said. Hence sola scriptura has been thrown out the window. In every previous manuscript of the Old Testament Elhanan killed Goliath in 2 Samuel 21:19 in the KJV he killed the brother of Goliath. This is just one example of the disappearance of sola scriptura because the translators thought it was an error in the scriptures.

There are two possibilities here.

Possibility #1. If Psalms 12:6-7 secondary meaning of the Lord’s words being purified seven times being prophetic is true, and the hand of God was indeed upon the King James translators through the seven different KJB editions that was finally settled with the 1900 Cambridge KJB Edition (Which I believe is the case), then no words were actually added; For it would be God preserving His words between one language to another so as to convey the same meaning. Most expert linguists know that words can be lost in translation or added because of translation. I know. My wife is Brazilian and she speaks Brazilian Portuguese and when I asked how to translate certain words in English to Brazilian Portuguese, she says some words in English will just not translate over into her native language. For if you know anything about languages, most languages do not always perfectly translate word for word into another language. God was able to perfectly translate the languages at Pentecost. So God is more than capable of doing so again with preserving His words for us with the King James Bible (1900 Cambridge Edition).

Possibility #2. The words added in the King James Bible from out of the original languages were for clarity and so as not to cause confusion in the English language because God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). In addition, the added words were placed in italics to show that they were not in the original languages of the manuscripts they possessed and according to their understanding on those languages. The KJB translators were being honest to place those words in italics letting the reader know the truth unlike many Modern Bibles today do not do so. A good example is the very one you brought up. For the translators were not adding but clarifying what the Bible already says in 2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Chronicles 20:5 (Which you are unable to see the connection because of you have faith in the religion of Modern Scholarship or faith in what the scribe or scholar says. But Jesus says beware of the scribes and not to implicitly trust them - See: Luke 20:46). For you gave the crazy impression before that 2 Samuel 21:19, and 1 Chronicles 20:5 are not parallel cross references and they are not speaking about the same event (Which is just ridiculous). Any normal reader is able to see they are speaking of the same event, and even Modern Scholars would agree with me, as well. Your understanding on these two verses makes God out to be the author of confusion because you want me to falsely think that Elhanan slew Goliath in 2 Samuel 21:19 (When we clearly know David slew Goliath), and yet Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath in 1 Chronicles 20:5. This reading of yours is confusion. But this is exactly what Modern Bibles and Modern Scholarship is all about. So this is just you reaching to not see the obvious (Unless of course you have changed your view or position on this recently). My encouragement is for you to pray and ask God for the understanding on 2 Samuel 21:19, and 1 Chronicles 20:5 and read these verses as if they are the very words of God to you and not as if they are words given to us by scholars.

 

[pescador]

By adding words that do not appear on any previous manuscripts they are going from what the Bible did say to now what the Bible never said. Hence sola scriptura has been thrown out the window. In every previous manuscript of the Old Testament Elhanan killed Goliath in 2 Samuel 21:19 in the KJV he killed the brother of Goliath. This is just one example of the disappearance of sola scriptura because the translators thought it was an error in the scriptures.

It's obvious that you don't understand the principle of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. In other words, it's not the post-Biblical teaching and doctrine of men that is correct, but the Bible alone.

It doesn't matter if there are different translations of a single verse such as 2 Samuel 21:19 (In my preferred translation, the NET v 2.1, it says, "Yet another battle occurred with the Philistines in Gob. On that occasion Elhanan the son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.") It doesn't matter one iota that the KJV says one thing and other translations say another, especially if it's one word. => There are no original sources. Translators do the best they can to translate the most reliable documents into the destination language, since a "word-for-word" translation is impossible. (There are too many differences between the source languages and the destination language.)

Do you actually think that if the KJV is worded one way and other translations are worded differently -- in your example, a single word -- that God's message to humanity is altered? Again, a "literal", "word-for-word" translation is impossible. God uses what and whom He wishes to get His message across.

 

[Strong in Him]

There are two possibilities here.

There is one certainty here;
you do not understand the meaning of Psalms 12:6.

Whether you do not understand it because it is too difficult, or whether it's because someone has told you of another, more attractive meaning, is for you to say.

Possibility #1. If Psalms 12:6-7 secondary meaning of the Lord’s words being purified seven times being prophetic is true,

The Lord's words were not, are not and do not need to be purified. You have agreed with that, so it can't be that bit which is too hard to understand.
The simile that David uses is God's word is LIKE silver which is purified seven times - it is the silver which is purified, not God's word.

and the hand of God was indeed upon the King James translators through the seven different KJB editions that was finally settled with the 1900 Cambridge KJB Edition

Ahh, I see; you have jumped to a conclusion and missed.

6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Maybe my eyesight is failing: can you show me where the words King James Bible are in that sentence?
That's right; nowhere.
Because of your unswerving belief that the ONLY word of God is the KJV, it seems that wherever and whenever you see "Word of God" you read "King James Bible".
That is clearly not the case; hundreds of people had the word of God before dear old King James was even thought of. I would be prepared to reconsider if you could show me where the King James Bible came to Isaiah, or Ezekiel, or Jesus - but you can't.

Sorry, but the longer you persist with this "the KJV is prophesied in Psalm 12:6" idea, the clearer it is that you haven't read/understood the Psalm correctly.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

Many of of your Modern Bibles come from the Nestle and Aland Critical Text (New Testament Greek text). The 27th edition clearly has a Catholic cardinal as an editor (Carlo Maria Martini). You can confirm this for yourself by just doing a Google search. So Modern Bibles are not free from Catholic influence (unlike the KJB) (Note: Yes, I know about Erasmus, see this article here to learn the actual truth about him). Anyways, while I love my fellow Catholic, I am not Catholic, and I do not believe in any of the added practices of the Catholic Church.

One of the Catholic beliefs I do not agree with is their denial of the “Bible Alone + the Anointing to Understand It” to build the faith. Catholics have basically suggested to me to look to the priest’s interpretation of the Bible, and I should not try to understand the Bible myself alone with God. So they want me to move away from trusting the Bible to build my faith in God’s Word. This is exactly what Modern Scholarship does. The Modern Scholar wants you to trust their words by faith in what they say about the manuscripts instead of just reading and believing your Bible alone with God. The scholar or priest takes the Word of God away from you.

Take for example 1 John 5:7 (Which is removed in Modern Bibles).

1 John 5:7 (KJB)
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

This is the one and only verse that point blank teaches the Trinity.

So instead of believing 1 John 5:7 by faith and thereby believing in the Trinity from the Bible Alone, the scholar takes away your faith in the Bible on this doctrine and places your faith in the scholar who says the Trinity is true (despite the scholar’s claim in that the Johannine comma is not actually being in the actual Word of God because the scholar will say 1 John 5:7 is not in the oldest and best manuscripts). So you believe the Trinity because the church told you it was true, and because the scholar tells you it is true and not because the Bible tells you directly about it like 1 John 5:7 does. See, this is the goal of the Catholic Church. They want to shift your paradigm of thinking to trust the scholar by faith instead of the Word of God just as the Catholic desires one to trust the priest to understand the Word of God instead of just simply reading and believing God’s Word to teach us. For 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

Besides, here is a historical trail of evidence in defense of 1 John 5:7:

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.​

Source:
David W. Daniels.

 

[pescador]

There is one certainty here;
you do not understand the meaning of Psalms 12:6.

Whether you do not understand it because it is too difficult, or whether it's because someone has told you of another, more attractive meaning, is for you to say.



The Lord's words were not, are not and do not need to be purified. You have agreed with that, so it can't be that bit which is too hard to understand.
The simile that David uses is God's word is LIKE silver which is purified seven times - it is the silver which is purified, not God's word.



Ahh, I see; you have jumped to a conclusion and missed.


Maybe my eyesight is failing: can you show me where the words King James Bible are in that sentence?
That's right; nowhere.
Because of your unswerving belief that the ONLY word of God is the KJV, it seems that wherever and whenever you see "Word of God" you read "King James Bible".
That is clearly not the case; hundreds of people had the word of God before dear old King James was even thought of. I would be prepared to reconsider if you could show me where the King James Bible came to Isaiah, or Ezekiel, or Jesus - but you can't.

Sorry, but the longer you persist with this "the KJV is prophesied in Psalm 12:6" idea, the clearer it is that you haven't read/understood the Psalm correctly.

Psalm 12:6 in the NET v 2.1 reads, "The Lord’s words are absolutely reliable.
They are as untainted as silver purified in a furnace on the ground,
where it is thoroughly refined."

It says that the Lord’s words are absolutely reliable not that the KJV's words are absolutely reliable. I sometimes get really frustrated that some people don't understand that our English Bibles (or all Bibles) are translations. Obviously, there is nothing in the source documents that says that the KJV is the word of God. The function of any translation is to communicate God's words to our human minds, using our language as the vehicle. Anyone who thinks that a 411-year-old translation is the only true one is deluded.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It's obvious that you don't understand the principle of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. In other words, it's not the post-Biblical teaching and doctrine of men that is correct, but the Bible alone.

It doesn't matter if there are different translations of a single verse such as 2 Samuel 21:19 (In my preferred translation, the NET v 2.1, it says, "Yet another battle occurred with the Philistines in Gob. On that occasion Elhanan the son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.") It doesn't matter one iota that the KJV says one thing and other translations say another, especially if it's one word. => There are no original sources. Translators do the best they can to translate the most reliable documents into the destination language, since a "word-for-word" translation is impossible. (There are too many differences between the source languages and the destination language.)

Do you actually think that if the KJV is worded one way and other translations are worded differently -- in your example, a single word -- that God's message to humanity is altered? Again, a "literal", "word-for-word" translation is impossible. God uses what and whom He wishes to get His message across.

Inspiration of the originals is a divine waste of time if there is no divine preservation of His words.

For with this kind of approach to the Word of God, how would you feel if I told you I created a plane and I deviated from the blueprints and tried test methods for safety and I just added my own general thoughts in creating the plane to the blueprint? Would you want to fly in that plane? Surely you would not because you value your life. Then why go with a tainted Bible that is full of half truths and or a general truth? The Bible is the book that deals with the salvation of our very souls which is far more important than the very physical temporary life that we live. But you can take a gamble on being liberal in your approach to God’s Word and paint a broad brush stroke of what you feel is correct in what His Word says. I fear God too much to change His words (See: Revelation 22:18-19).

 

[Strong in Him]

But you can take a gamble on being liberal with God’s Word and paint a broad brush stroke of what you feel is correct in what His Word says. I fear God too much to change His words (See: Revelation 22:18-19).

Which is what you are doing in Psalms 12:6.
It is the SILVER that is purified 7 times; not the word of the Lord, which is pure, whether he speaks it or writes it. But you are ignoring that, teaching that God's word has been purified 7 times, and as the KJV translators produced 7 editions of God's word, this MUST be a prophecy about a book which would be produced 1900 years later. Apparently the apostles didn't have God's pure word.

Not even close.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

1 John 5:7 and Unbelief

By Rev. Taylor.

I recently read a thorough and fair defense of the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) which reminded me of how the approach of many Christians in the modern church is absolutely backwards when it comes to Scripture. In today’s world of Modern Textual Criticism, Christians seem to take a backwards approach when seeking to determine if they should accept a textual variant as authentic. The method employed by the author of the linked article demonstrates, in my opinion, how textual data should be viewed, so please read the article prior to this one. In this article, I will comment on the two approaches to textual variation and conclude by explaining why I believe the approach taken by the exemplar author is correct.

Method 1: Modern Textual Criticism

I have spent a great deal of time and word count (222,197 words to be exact) on this blog explaining the methods and theology of the Modern Textual Critics and advocates. I have pointed out, using the words of the textual scholars, that there is no Modern Critical Text, there is no end in sight to the current effort, and adopting the Modern Critical Text means also to reject providential preservation. In all these words, I have yet to describe the approach of the Modern Textual Critic and advocate.

When a defender, advocate, or scholar of the Modern Critical Text approaches a place of textual variation, they do so by first questioning its authenticity. Practically speaking, a variant is to only be questioned if the scholars who produced the NA/UBS platforms have called it into question. That is not to say that others in history haven’t called such texts into question prior to the 20th century, just that these questions are exemplified in the modern critical texts. The reason this is problematic is that there is no consistent application of this skepticism applied to every line of Scripture.

See, the epistemological foundation for the Modern Textual Critic, according to Dan Wallace and his colleagues, is that we don’t have what the authors originally wrote, and even if we did, we wouldn’t know it.

“We do not have now – in any of our critical Greek texts or in any translations – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it.”

Dan Wallace. Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism. xii.​

This kind of foundation cannot conveniently stop at our favorite three passages. It must apply uniformly across the whole text of the New Testament. If 200 years of textual transmission which saw such a great change to the text from the “Alexandrian” text form to the “Byzantine” text form, then the first 200 years of textual transmission, of which we have basically zero extant evidence for, could also be equally or more significant. That is to say, our 200 year gap in the manuscript data in the first 200 years of the church is enough of a gap to call into question every single passage of the New Testament. This is the logical end of the Critical Text position. There isn’t a single line of Scripture that can be said to be 100% authentic to the pen of the apostolic writers, according to the Modern Critical Text advocate. This is further evidenced by the fact that there is not a single textual scholar or apologist that will lay claim to any specific percentage or list of authentic passages.

So when an advocate of the Modern Critical Text challenges a textual variant, they do so selectively and arbitrarily. Once they have identified a passage, verse, or word that they do not believe original, the goal is to then “disprove” that the reading was authentic. The text is on trial, and the Modern Critical Text advocate is the prosecutor. It is not a question of “Is this text authentic?”, it is a question of, “Why is this text inauthentic and how did it get there?” If they were consistent, they would apply this same approach to every line of Holy Scripture, and have no evidential reason to accept one reading or another. The evidential foundation for their approach is based upon manuscripts that are dated 200 years or more after the New Testament was written without any supporting evidence that those texts date back to the Apostles. This is the fatal flaw in Modern Textual Criticism – there is nothing that ties their text back to the original, and there never will be. That is why approach matters.

Method 2: Preservationist

In contrast to the first method, the Preservationist perspective approaches places of textual variation with the assumption that the original has been preserved, and it can be easily discerned. The preservation of Scripture did not stop with Codex Vaticanus, it carried on through the middle ages and into the Reformation when the world could finally print and mass distribute texts. There is a reason the vast majority of extant manuscripts do not look like Vaticanus or the Modern Critical Text. The church, through transmission and by God’s providence, kept the text pure. Therefore, if a text made it to the mass distribution era of the church, it had been passed along by the era that came before it. Since the church was by and large divided into two represented by the East and West, the combination of these texts yielded the original. That is why the advent of the printing press, the fall of Constantinople, and the Protestant Reformation is such a significant time in church history. It was the first time the church had authentic texts that were being used in one place with the ability to combine them and distribute them church-wide.

So then, to the Preservationist, the question is not, “Is this text authentic?”, it is, “Why did the people of God understand this to be authentic in time and space?” Thus, the burden of proof is not placed on a smattering of early manuscripts that have been in favor for the last 200 years. The Preservationist’s chief effort then is to support the text that has been handed down, rather than question its validity at every place disagreeable to the Vatican Codex. The assumption is that God preserved the text, and we have it. It is a matter of defending what is in our hands, rather than reconstructing what is not in our hands. Once you accept the premise that the Bible has fallen into such disarray that it must be reconstructed, there is not a single passage of Scripture that cannot be called into question. Further, there is no way to validate that any conclusion on a given text speaks conclusively about the original text itself. That is why the current effort is focused on the initial text, not the original. What can be proved is limited to hundreds of years after the Apostles, and even then, “proved” is much stronger language than textual scholars are comfortable with.

1 John 5:7 is a perfect example where the two approaches come to two separate conclusions. Since 1 John 5:7 is thinly represented in the extant manuscript data, the difference in conclusion on the text is really a matter of approach. The Modern Critical Text crowd has already admitted that even if 1 John 5:7 was original, they wouldn’t know it, so any conclusion jumping off from that point is irrelevant. Nothing they determine can actually be concluded by textual data, and so they engage in story telling. “The passage was brought up from a footnote. It was added to bolster the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.” Yet they do so without any direct evidence claiming this is what happened. Strangely enough, these critics also conveniently reject any evidence offering explanation as to why a passage is not in certain manuscripts. The bias in Modern Textual Criticism to favor manuscripts that have been historically rejected is strong.

If we approach this text from a preservationist perspective, we see that the wording is referenced by Tertullian (2nd century), Origen (3rd Century), Athanasius (4th Century), Priscillian (4th Century), Augustine (4th Century), and directly quoted by Cyprian (3rd Century). The direct quotations can be found in this article. This is not the only support for the passage, but it is enough for the preservationist to support 1 John 5:7 as original. It is enough to defend the text we have in hand, and the text handed down to us from the Reformation era. Accepting the Johannine Comma is not an issue of evidence, because the evidence exists. It is a matter of Bibliology and approach.

Just because a manuscript is surviving today does not mean it is the only manuscript to ever have existed. Textual scholars and apologists carry on about how many Bibles were destroyed during times of persecution and war and fail to acknowledge that those destroyed manuscripts could very well have contained the passages they reject today. The abundance of quotes and references to the passage, along with the reception of the text by our Protestant forefathers informs us that manuscripts with the passage existed, we just don’t have them today. Paradoxically, this is not enough for Modern Critical Text advocates to adjust how they approach textual data. The fact that we do not have an abundance of handwritten manuscripts in 2021 should not be a surprise, seeing as handwritten manuscripts of the Bible haven’t been produced or used in over 400 years. The Protestants and those that came after believed 1 John 5:7 to be original, and even claimed that authentic copies in their day had the passage. They even recognize that there was a time where manuscripts did not have the passage. See Francis Turretin commenting on the three major variants still debated today.

“There is no truth in the assertion that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New Testament are said to be mutilated; nor can the arguments used by our opponents prove it. Not the history of the adulteress, for although it is lacking in he Syriac version, it is found in all the Greek Manuscripts. Not 1 John 5:7, for although some formerly called it into question and heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it…Not Mark 16, which may have been wanted in several copies in the time of Jerome (as he asserts); but now it occurs in all, even in the Syriac version, and is clearly necessary to complete the history of the resurrection of Christ”

Francis Turretin. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Volume 1. 115.
See, an honest scholar would admit that the position of the Protestant and Post-Reformation church was that of the Preservationist. It was that of the TR advocate. Behind closed doors, many prominent modern scholars admit this, they just don’t like it. For more quotations on the passage from historical Protestant theologians, see this article here.

Conclusion

So I argue here in this article that there is a stark difference in approach between the Modern Critical Text advocate and the Preservationist and that the difference in approach is far more significant than the textual data itself. Those in the Modern Critical Text camp are determined to answer “Why is this not Scripture and how did it get in the text?”, whereas the Preservationist says, “This is in our text, how do we support it?” The interesting thing is, that if the Critical Text advocate took the approach of a Preservationist, they would find that the burden of proof they accept for many passages would be enough to accept John 7:53-8:11, Mark 16:9-20, and 1 John 5:7. The issue is not evidence, it is approach.

If you approach a text with the belief that it is not Scripture as the Modern Critical Text crowd does, you will find that it is not Scripture in your eyes. Yet, as with all claims based on extant textual data, there is no warrant to come to any conclusion. That is why the scholars never do. If you approach the text with the belief that it is Scripture, you will find the the evidence to support that claim. Since the belief of the Preservationist is not based on extant data, the extant data is merely a support, not a foundation. The Preservationist recognizes that extant data will never “prove” the Bible. It is a theological position similar to the resurrected Christ. The most important question is not “what evidence do you have?”, it is, “What does the Bible say?” If it is preserved, than the conclusion is that 1 John 5:7 is original. If Scripture is not preserved and needs to be reconstructed, than the conclusion is not only that 1 John 5:7 is inauthentic, but so is all the rest of Scripture. There is nothing conclusive against 1 John 5:7 that cannot also be conclusive against all of the rest of Scripture. This is inevitable considering the significant gap in our extant manuscript data from the apostolic period to the 3rd century.

This is the reality that those who continue to advocate for Modern Textual Criticism do not understand. The Papyri do not give us a complete look at the first 200 years of textual transmission. Not even close. If we use the argument against John 7:53-8:11 from the Papyri against the rest of Scripture, then we lose everything that’s not in the Papyri. For those that do not know much of the Papyri, we essentially wouldn’t have a Bible. If we apply the same approach that the Modern Critical Text advocate applies to 1 John 5:7, there are no texts in the Bible that are safe. If you are tuned into the textual discussion, you know that this is absolutely the case among the elite textual scholars. See this quote from a recent book by Tommy Wasserman and Jennifer Knust on the Pericope Adulterae.

“Even if the text of the Gospels could be fixed – and, when viewed at the level of object and material artifact, this goal has never been achieved – the purported meanings of texts also change”

Knust & Wasserman. To Cast the First Stone. 15,16.​

Do not be mistaken, Christian, the scholars of the Modern Critical Text cannot “prove” any passage, verse, or word of Scripture authentic. Not only that, they openly say they cannot. So then it is a matter of approach, which is determined by theology. What you believe about Scripture will determine what Bible you have in your hands. Do you believe the Bible needs to be reconstructed? You will have in your hands a text that nobody believes represents the original text. Do you believe that the Bible is preserved? You will have in your hands a Bible that was produced by men who believed it was the original text. It is that simple.


Source:
1 John 5:7 and Unbelief
(Note: I agree with the author in this article. This does not mean I agree with his belief in Calvinism or other viewpoints).

 

[pescador]

I have seven eggs remaining in the carton, so there is no question that those eggs are holy and perfect. Correct?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Read the rebuttal of the Johannine Comma Supporters:

The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8: Added or Removed? - Berean Patriot

For me, the evidence is in favor of 1 John 5:7.

In other words… believe the Trinity not because your church told you, or because some scholar told you, believe the Trinity because the Bible specifically says so. Don’t fall for the thinking of the Catholic Church whereby they want to get the Word of God out of your hands and trust the priests (scholars) to tell you what the Bible says. Just read and believe your Bible by faith!!!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have seven eggs remaining in the carton, so there is no question that those eggs are holy and perfect. Correct?

There are actually many evidences for the Word of God.
Check out my Blogger article here:

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

This would naturally of course be the King James Bible because there are evidences that back it up that it is the Word of God for today.

30 Reasons for the King James Bible

For where is your perfect Bible? If you don’t have a perfect Bible or Word of God, then you get to decide what God actually said instead. However, that’s a dangerous game to play. You could end butchering God’s Word and or adding to what He said if you don’t have a perfectly settled Word of God.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have seven eggs remaining in the carton, so there is no question that those eggs are holy and perfect. Correct?

People attack banks because there is something of value within them.
It’s the same with the Word of God.

For I did not just randomly select the King James Bible as being the Word of God. It is the most attacked Bible. It is attacked by Modern Bibles, and real human beings. These attacks are for the worse and not for the better. There is also Biblical numerics which confirms the divine nature of the King James Bible, and the fulfillment of prophecy in Psalms 12:6-7 involving the KJB. There is also the number 1611 found when you add up the three verse numbers that talk about how God’s words are like bread. It is the Bible that has stood for hundreds of years long before the Critical Text and Modern Textual Criticism came along and said there is no perfect Bible that you can trust (Thereby taking the Word of God out of people’s hands and making them either liberal or walking away from the faith). For it’s not a coincidence that those Christians who went to Bible college and fell away from the faith is tied to Modern Scholarship that makes them to doubt God’s words. If only they simply trusted that good ole King James Bible by faith that everyone hates. Modern Scholarship may make sense to you and you may hate the idea of reading 1600’s English…

“But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;” (1 Corinthians 1:27).