Take it up with @Bible_Highlighter. Having already refuted your position, I'm a spectator on this.
-
1
- Show all
The Error of KJV-Onlyism
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I am not sure which ESV you are looking at, but when I look at the ESV at Biblehub.com, just looking at the first five on his list, it shows the changes that favor the Catholic Church from Kieth Piper’s NIV Omissions PDF.
Catholic Changes in the ESV
(that line up with Kieth Piper’s Catholic changes list involving the NIV):
I am short on time and do not have time to give you the full list. So either you have another ESV that says something different, or you are not being truthful here or you are moving the goalposts to refer to something else as a distraction away from the changes on this list by Kieth Piper.
Catholic Changes in the ESV
(that line up with Kieth Piper’s Catholic changes list involving the NIV):
- Acts 8:37 is gone (Source 1) (Source 2).
- 1 Corinthians 10:28 removes the words “unto idols.” (Source).
- 2 Samuel 5:21 says in the ESV “his men carried them away” Instead of “his men burned them” (KJV) in context to idols or images. (Source)
- Luke 1:28 removes the words “blessed art thou among women” in the KJV (Source).
- John 1:42 changes the word “stone” to the word “Peter.” (Source)
I am short on time and do not have time to give you the full list. So either you have another ESV that says something different, or you are not being truthful here or you are moving the goalposts to refer to something else as a distraction away from the changes on this list by Kieth Piper.
The two major texts favored by Modern Textual Criticism today is the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two texts were the ones compiled into one New Testament Greek text by Westcott and Hort who started the departure away from the Received Text line of Greek texts that are in line with the King James Bible (Textus Receptus Greek texts for the New Testament).
Wescott and Hort were into spiritism. We actually have quotes that confirm this by their own letters.
Watch this short video here:
Wescott and Hort were into spiritism. We actually have quotes that confirm this by their own letters.
Watch this short video here:
KJVO really has only one problem: no one can show convincing proof that God preserved His word in the KJV and only the KJV. This has always been my position and it's still true. KJVOs can show a million reasons why every other translation is "corrupted," but they can't show the one thing that really matters.
-
3
- Show all
I have heard another KJV only believer share this view before. It was on an IFB video defending the KJB. I am not a part of the IFB. Obviously not all King James Bible believers share the same beliefs on everything but we are united by one text even if we disagree on the interpretation of the text at times.
Here is my explanation as a part of my 101 reasons for the KJB write-up.
Modern Bibles falsely teach that Jesus had faith in Hebrews 12:2 (NIV) (CSB) (NET) (ISV) (CEB) (EXB) (MOUNCE) (RSV) (NRSV). Hebrews 11 defines faith as: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1). So if we see God face to face, we would no longer have any need for faith in the existence of God, right? It would no longer be the “evidence of things not seen.” According to Scripture: We know Jesus had seen God the Father. Jesus says, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” (John 1:18). Jesus says, “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” (John 5:19). So Jesus says He sees the Father; Therefore, it would be impossible for Jesus to have faith in God the Father’s existence (like us). In addition, Jesus also said that He came down from Heaven (John 6:38) and that He (the Son of Man) is in Heaven (John 3:13).
Here is my explanation as a part of my 101 reasons for the KJB write-up.
Modern Bibles falsely teach that Jesus had faith in Hebrews 12:2 (NIV) (CSB) (NET) (ISV) (CEB) (EXB) (MOUNCE) (RSV) (NRSV). Hebrews 11 defines faith as: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1). So if we see God face to face, we would no longer have any need for faith in the existence of God, right? It would no longer be the “evidence of things not seen.” According to Scripture: We know Jesus had seen God the Father. Jesus says, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” (John 1:18). Jesus says, “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” (John 5:19). So Jesus says He sees the Father; Therefore, it would be impossible for Jesus to have faith in God the Father’s existence (like us). In addition, Jesus also said that He came down from Heaven (John 6:38) and that He (the Son of Man) is in Heaven (John 3:13).
Actually, there are 10 Major Categories that defends the KJB.
#1. Manuscript Witnesses (Majority of manuscripts or witnesses favor the KJB). Compare 5,800 manuscripts for the TR with only 45 or so for the Alexandrian texts. In the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. There are four gospels, etcetera. In Textual Criticism they say the old is better after having tasted the new. Also, just because something is older does not mean it is better. A pagan religious document that would predate the Incarnation of Christ is not better just because it is older to the NT Scriptures. In fact, Paul said that even in his time, the Scriptures were being corrupted. Is it not odd that this very verse that talks about this corruption is altered in Modern bibles?
#2. Doctrinal (The KJB is doctrinally superior. Meaning, doctrines that are vitally important are found in the KJV, but yet, they are missing in the Modern Bibles. Also, Modern bibles teach false doctrines, as well).
#3. Influence or Fruit (The KJB is the most printed book in the world and it had the greatest influence positively in history leading to many great revivals whereas the Modern Bibles are tied to this recent Laodicean church age). (a) There are 200 plus idioms or phrases in the English speaking world that are found in the KJB. (b) The KJB had an amazing impact and influence greatly upon the English speaking world, especially here in America.
#4. Biblical; The Word of God speaking about the Word (Meaning, the Bible supports that there is a book, and it is perfect, and would be preserved forever - which aligns with the KJB belief; Whereas Textual Criticism cannot be demonstrated by Scripture).
#5. Historical: Comparing the Origins of Each (One can see the hand of God upon the origins of the KJB, and it had the best translators, whereas with the Modern Translation movement, its origins are tied to deceptions, Catholicism, Unitarianism, liberalism, and other problems; In short, the KJB has noble and good origins and the Modern Bibles have dark origins).
#6. Problems of Textual Criticism (Part 1) There is no singular standard and everyone does what is right in their own eyes. They have phantom bibles that exist only in their own minds or the minds of their chosen respected scholars. Dan Wallace does not agree with James White. They cannot actually point to a singular book and say it is the Word of God or the Bible (a.k.a. the Book of the Lord as mentioned in Isaiah 34:16). They become the authority or the scholar becomes the authority when they find what they believe is an error in God’s Word. There is no true reverence for the words of God when the Bible warns not to add or take away from his words and Jesus tells us His words would not pass away.
#7. Problems of Textual Criticism (Part 2) The Men Attached to Modern Scholarship.
#8. Problems of Textual Criticism (Part 3) Deceptions in Modern Scholarship.
#9. Unique superior qualities of the KJB. (a) Thous, and Thees help you to distinguish between a singular person being spoken to vs. two or more people. Many Modern bibles do not have this distinction or quality. (b) The KJB was not originally created with a copyright and so its creation was not motivated by one, unlike Modern Translations. (c) The KJB has italicized words, which shows the honesty of the translators. (d) KJB is easier to memorize (e) KJB was designed to be spoken and heard by the ear.
#10. Divine Nature of the Text or Biblical Numerics. The KJB is the only Bible that has amazing unexplainable numerical patterns within it that can only be the hand of God upon such a book.
These are the major categorical evidences for the KJB. If you are still not convinced, we simply encourage you to keep an open mind and look at these evidences more closely like a detective.
#1. Manuscript Witnesses (Majority of manuscripts or witnesses favor the KJB). Compare 5,800 manuscripts for the TR with only 45 or so for the Alexandrian texts. In the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. There are four gospels, etcetera. In Textual Criticism they say the old is better after having tasted the new. Also, just because something is older does not mean it is better. A pagan religious document that would predate the Incarnation of Christ is not better just because it is older to the NT Scriptures. In fact, Paul said that even in his time, the Scriptures were being corrupted. Is it not odd that this very verse that talks about this corruption is altered in Modern bibles?
#2. Doctrinal (The KJB is doctrinally superior. Meaning, doctrines that are vitally important are found in the KJV, but yet, they are missing in the Modern Bibles. Also, Modern bibles teach false doctrines, as well).
#3. Influence or Fruit (The KJB is the most printed book in the world and it had the greatest influence positively in history leading to many great revivals whereas the Modern Bibles are tied to this recent Laodicean church age). (a) There are 200 plus idioms or phrases in the English speaking world that are found in the KJB. (b) The KJB had an amazing impact and influence greatly upon the English speaking world, especially here in America.
#4. Biblical; The Word of God speaking about the Word (Meaning, the Bible supports that there is a book, and it is perfect, and would be preserved forever - which aligns with the KJB belief; Whereas Textual Criticism cannot be demonstrated by Scripture).
#5. Historical: Comparing the Origins of Each (One can see the hand of God upon the origins of the KJB, and it had the best translators, whereas with the Modern Translation movement, its origins are tied to deceptions, Catholicism, Unitarianism, liberalism, and other problems; In short, the KJB has noble and good origins and the Modern Bibles have dark origins).
#6. Problems of Textual Criticism (Part 1) There is no singular standard and everyone does what is right in their own eyes. They have phantom bibles that exist only in their own minds or the minds of their chosen respected scholars. Dan Wallace does not agree with James White. They cannot actually point to a singular book and say it is the Word of God or the Bible (a.k.a. the Book of the Lord as mentioned in Isaiah 34:16). They become the authority or the scholar becomes the authority when they find what they believe is an error in God’s Word. There is no true reverence for the words of God when the Bible warns not to add or take away from his words and Jesus tells us His words would not pass away.
#7. Problems of Textual Criticism (Part 2) The Men Attached to Modern Scholarship.
#8. Problems of Textual Criticism (Part 3) Deceptions in Modern Scholarship.
#9. Unique superior qualities of the KJB. (a) Thous, and Thees help you to distinguish between a singular person being spoken to vs. two or more people. Many Modern bibles do not have this distinction or quality. (b) The KJB was not originally created with a copyright and so its creation was not motivated by one, unlike Modern Translations. (c) The KJB has italicized words, which shows the honesty of the translators. (d) KJB is easier to memorize (e) KJB was designed to be spoken and heard by the ear.
#10. Divine Nature of the Text or Biblical Numerics. The KJB is the only Bible that has amazing unexplainable numerical patterns within it that can only be the hand of God upon such a book.
These are the major categorical evidences for the KJB. If you are still not convinced, we simply encourage you to keep an open mind and look at these evidences more closely like a detective.
It is important to understand that the ESV ultimately has it’s origins in the Revised Version of 1881 put out by Westcott and Hort.
Looking at the history of the ESV:
ESV (English Standard Version) is derived from the Revised Standard Version (RSV) (2nd edition 1971).
Revised Standard Version (RSV) is derived from the American Standard Version (ASV) (1901).
American Standard Version (ASV) is derived from the English Revised Version (RV) (ERV) of 1881 by Westcott and Hort.
English Revised Version (RV) is derived from the Greek New Testament Text by Westcott and Hort text (1881) which is based upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.
Below is a complete list of Catholic changes based on Piper’s study involving the NIV. I actually found 12 this time and not 11.
Catholic Changes in the ESV
(The comparison is between the KJV and the ESV as depicted at Biblehub.com):
In the ESV:
Looking at the history of the ESV:
ESV (English Standard Version) is derived from the Revised Standard Version (RSV) (2nd edition 1971).
Revised Standard Version (RSV) is derived from the American Standard Version (ASV) (1901).
American Standard Version (ASV) is derived from the English Revised Version (RV) (ERV) of 1881 by Westcott and Hort.
English Revised Version (RV) is derived from the Greek New Testament Text by Westcott and Hort text (1881) which is based upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.
Below is a complete list of Catholic changes based on Piper’s study involving the NIV. I actually found 12 this time and not 11.
Catholic Changes in the ESV
(The comparison is between the KJV and the ESV as depicted at Biblehub.com):
In the ESV:
- Acts 8:37 is completely eliminated (Source 1) (Source 2).
- 1 Corinthians 10:28 removes the words “unto idols.” (Source).
- 2 Samuel 5:21 says in the ESV “his men carried them away” Instead of “his men burned them” (KJV) in context to idols or images. (Source)
- Luke 1:28 removes the words “blessed art thou among women” in the KJV (Source).
- John 1:42 changes the word “stone” to the word “Peter.” (Source)
- 1 Peter 1:18 removes the words “received by tradition” (Source)
- Luke 9:54-46 removes the words “even as Elias did?” (Verse 54), removes the words, “and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.” (Verse 55), and removes the words, “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.” (Verse 56). (Source) (Source) (Source).
- Matthew 1:25 removes the words “her firstborn” in context to Mary’s son (Jesus). (Source).
- Matthew 23:14 is gone (Source 1) (Source 2)
- James 5:16 changes the word “faults” to “sins”. So the ESV is wrongfully saying to confess your sins to one another (Source).
- Romans 15:16 says “the priestly service of the gospel of God,” (ESV) instead of saying “ministering the gospel of God” (KJV). (Source).
- Matthew 6:7 says “do not heap up empty phrases” (ESV) instead of saying “use not vain repetitions” (KJV). (Source).
I was just reading the preface of the Westcott and Hort Revised Version, and I had to stop.
It's insane.
You can see it here:
https://archive.org/details/cu31924029309717/
It is horrifying, to say the least.
On the half-title page, it states these words:
Uh, it's definitely not the version set forth in 1611.
In the Preface it says,
This is a lie. It was a new translation.
It is not in any way like the King James Bible.
The Preface also says,
To introduce as few alterations as possible?
It's a total butcher job upon the KJV whereby it i no longer even recognizable as a KJV anymore. In fact, it is not even based on the same Greek manuscripts. What in the world are they talking about?
And you trust these two guys when it comes to the authority of the best manuscripts?
They are lying to you. Don't believe them. Believe the Bible that faithful Christians used for hundreds of years (i.e., the King James Bible).
It's insane.
You can see it here:
https://archive.org/details/cu31924029309717/
It is horrifying, to say the least.
On the half-title page, it states these words:
"BEING THE VERSION SET FORTH A.D. 1611"
Uh, it's definitely not the version set forth in 1611.
In the Preface it says,
"That in the above resolutions we do not contemplate any new translation of the Bible, or any alteration of the language, except where in the judgement of the most competent scholars such change is necessary."
This is a lie. It was a new translation.
It is not in any way like the King James Bible.
The Preface also says,
"The Principles and Rxiles agreed to by the Committee of Convocation on the twenty-fifth day of May 1870 were as follows : —
'1. To introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorised Version consistently with faithfulness."
To introduce as few alterations as possible?
It's a total butcher job upon the KJV whereby it i no longer even recognizable as a KJV anymore. In fact, it is not even based on the same Greek manuscripts. What in the world are they talking about?
And you trust these two guys when it comes to the authority of the best manuscripts?
They are lying to you. Don't believe them. Believe the Bible that faithful Christians used for hundreds of years (i.e., the King James Bible).
Glad to hear you're not a KJV only. That is the only problem I have is when someone refuses to even consider reading another version. I have a feeling after digging into this I might be a core KJV as well.
It seems we have some slightly different doctrinal views and I looking forward to hopefully discussing them with you.
It seems we have some slightly different doctrinal views and I looking forward to hopefully discussing them with you.
Dictionaries can be updated by unbelievers but that does not mean we don't use them.
This is the same way I look at Modern Bibles. There have been many times when Modern Bibles have truly blessed me in my understanding of the KJV.
For example, one of the worst paraphrases that I would not even normally touch with a ten-foot pole (God's Word Translation) helped me to see what the KJV says in Colossians 2:17. The only way I saw what it says was when I happened to glance at it at Biblehub when I was comparing the different translations with the King James Bible.
It helped illustrate the picture in my mind of Christ's body was standing there, and He was casting a shadow (or shadows). These shadows of course that are being cast are the holy days, dietary laws, Sabbath, etcetera (Which I believe do not apply to the life of the New Testament Christian).
There have been many other great moments of clarity by comparing the KJV to Modern Translations.
However, I know Modern Bibles also teach false doctrines and they are based on two corrupt manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) and the work of two heretical men (Westcott and Hort).
There has been one rare instance where my study where I was forced to look at the original languages involving the topic of but I did not try to explain away what the word said in the English in the KJV. The meaning in the original languages simply gave me more depth of meaning. Most today will unfortunately try to explain away what the words in the Bible say in English and I make a great effort never to do that because I believe it is dangerous to alter God's words.
I believe in the Trinity. I am hoping you believe this basic truth in Scripture because I generally do not like to have discourse with those who deny who God is. I also believe the Bible is my sole authority and the Spirit can guide us into understanding what it says. If somebody is against this I also have a hard time finding a common ground with them because the Bible is my final word of authority for all matters of faith and practice.
Now, I do believe the Bible teaches a view of Soteriology that most in Christianity do not accept. To be upfront and open about what I believe, I believe the Scriptures teach two aspects of salvation.
They do not believe there is ever a point where we are saved solely by a "belief alone" in the "gospel alone" or by God's grace and mercy alone.
Other groups try to bypass Aspect Salvation #2 and make it all about a belief alone in Jesus and you do not need to worry about sin or being fruitful for God in this life. You can just ignore the cries of the poor as they step over them, and still enter through the pearly gates (Note: This is an exaggerated example but many today believe you can sin and still be saved or they believe the fornicating man in 1 Corinthians 5 that was kicked out of the church).
I realize most Christians do not hold to my view of Soteriology. But a few do. Anyway, in my 101 Reasons for the KJB PDF write, I do not push promote this because I want to create a common ground over being united by one text. In KJV debates, I strive not to bring up my view of Soteriology, as well. So if you disagree, I would say that this topic would be for another thread (Although my time is extremely limited).
I hope this helps, and may the Lord Jesus bless you beyond all measure today.
This is the same way I look at Modern Bibles. There have been many times when Modern Bibles have truly blessed me in my understanding of the KJV.
For example, one of the worst paraphrases that I would not even normally touch with a ten-foot pole (God's Word Translation) helped me to see what the KJV says in Colossians 2:17. The only way I saw what it says was when I happened to glance at it at Biblehub when I was comparing the different translations with the King James Bible.
Colossians 2:17 KJV says,
"Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
Colossians 2:17 GW says,
"These are a shadow of the things to come, but the body [that casts the shadow] belongs to Christ."
It helped illustrate the picture in my mind of Christ's body was standing there, and He was casting a shadow (or shadows). These shadows of course that are being cast are the holy days, dietary laws, Sabbath, etcetera (Which I believe do not apply to the life of the New Testament Christian).
There have been many other great moments of clarity by comparing the KJV to Modern Translations.
However, I know Modern Bibles also teach false doctrines and they are based on two corrupt manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) and the work of two heretical men (Westcott and Hort).
There has been one rare instance where my study where I was forced to look at the original languages involving the topic of but I did not try to explain away what the word said in the English in the KJV. The meaning in the original languages simply gave me more depth of meaning. Most today will unfortunately try to explain away what the words in the Bible say in English and I make a great effort never to do that because I believe it is dangerous to alter God's words.
I believe in the Trinity. I am hoping you believe this basic truth in Scripture because I generally do not like to have discourse with those who deny who God is. I also believe the Bible is my sole authority and the Spirit can guide us into understanding what it says. If somebody is against this I also have a hard time finding a common ground with them because the Bible is my final word of authority for all matters of faith and practice.
Now, I do believe the Bible teaches a view of Soteriology that most in Christianity do not accept. To be upfront and open about what I believe, I believe the Scriptures teach two aspects of salvation.
Aspect of Salvation #1.
We are first saved by God's grace through faith without works (Ephesians 2:8-9) (Titus 3:5).
This is believing the gospel in that Christ died for our sins, he was buried, and risen on the third day for our salvation (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), and can involve calling upon Jesus seeking forgiveness of our past life as a sinner (Romans 10:9-13). God's grace is foundational because we have to keep believing the gospel and if we happen to stumble in sin on rare occasions unintentionally, we confess our sins to be forgiven of those sins (with the thinking that we will forsake them for good) (1 John 1:9) (1 John 1:7) (Proverbs 28:13). Believers do not do a "good work" to absolve sin but they boldly go the throne of His grace. Most do not know that Paul was fighting against the heresy of those who thought they had to first be circumcised to be initially saved (See: Acts 15:1, Acts 15:5, Acts 15:24, and Galatians 5:2). This is why Paul spoke in the way he did when he spoke of salvation.
Aspect of Salvation #2.
God has chosen us for salvation through the Sanctification of the Spirit, and a belief in the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:13), which is NOT the gospel, but a call of the gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:14) (Also see: Galatians 6:8-9, Romans 8:13, 1 Timothy 5:8).
Some groups try to bypass Aspect Salvation #1 and make salvation all about works like the Church of Christ or the Catholic Church.They do not believe there is ever a point where we are saved solely by a "belief alone" in the "gospel alone" or by God's grace and mercy alone.
Other groups try to bypass Aspect Salvation #2 and make it all about a belief alone in Jesus and you do not need to worry about sin or being fruitful for God in this life. You can just ignore the cries of the poor as they step over them, and still enter through the pearly gates (Note: This is an exaggerated example but many today believe you can sin and still be saved or they believe the fornicating man in 1 Corinthians 5 that was kicked out of the church).
I realize most Christians do not hold to my view of Soteriology. But a few do. Anyway, in my 101 Reasons for the KJB PDF write, I do not push promote this because I want to create a common ground over being united by one text. In KJV debates, I strive not to bring up my view of Soteriology, as well. So if you disagree, I would say that this topic would be for another thread (Although my time is extremely limited).
I hope this helps, and may the Lord Jesus bless you beyond all measure today.
You have to remember that the evil that Joseph's brothers intended against Joseph, God used as a part of a greater plan for good.
Also, what looked like the end of the disciple's master (JESUS) was the greatest event in human history that opened the door for mankind to be saved.
Anyway, you need to understand that I am not looking to explain away the words in the KJV or King James Bible in any way.
I believe that God preserved His words in the KJV right down the jot and tittle. No errors in the KJV exist. I believe even the differences between the MAJOR KJV editions were guided by God and it was finally settled with the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900 by A.W. Pollard). I believe that even the printing errors in select MAJOR KJB editions were under God's control. Scripture teaches that God is in control of the casting of lots (See: Proverbs 16:33).
I believe if the English words in the KJV differ from the Modern Bible, I will always side with the KJV every time because I believe that is the pure Word of God that is my final Word of authority. I treat Modern Bibles like I would looking at a dictionary for a word in the KJV. You can be given the light of understanding by looking at the meaning of a word in a dictionary (Especially if that definition fits the context). I do not agree that it is okay to explain away any words in the KJV. I believe the KJV are the very words of God. So I am not looking to explain them away like most in the Modern Scholarship camp. Even original language studies I have done on very very very rare occasions are still in submission to what that word says in English. There may be another layer of meaning behind an English word in the KJV, but it does not contradict what that word says in English.
Also, what looked like the end of the disciple's master (JESUS) was the greatest event in human history that opened the door for mankind to be saved.
Anyway, you need to understand that I am not looking to explain away the words in the KJV or King James Bible in any way.
I believe that God preserved His words in the KJV right down the jot and tittle. No errors in the KJV exist. I believe even the differences between the MAJOR KJV editions were guided by God and it was finally settled with the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900 by A.W. Pollard). I believe that even the printing errors in select MAJOR KJB editions were under God's control. Scripture teaches that God is in control of the casting of lots (See: Proverbs 16:33).
I believe if the English words in the KJV differ from the Modern Bible, I will always side with the KJV every time because I believe that is the pure Word of God that is my final Word of authority. I treat Modern Bibles like I would looking at a dictionary for a word in the KJV. You can be given the light of understanding by looking at the meaning of a word in a dictionary (Especially if that definition fits the context). I do not agree that it is okay to explain away any words in the KJV. I believe the KJV are the very words of God. So I am not looking to explain them away like most in the Modern Scholarship camp. Even original language studies I have done on very very very rare occasions are still in submission to what that word says in English. There may be another layer of meaning behind an English word in the KJV, but it does not contradict what that word says in English.
You also have to understand that I warn against Modern Bibles, as well.
They are not my final Word of authority, and I would never tell somebody to look to Modern Bibles if they do not believe in a perfect Word of God (Which is the KJV). Only a person who has a perfect Bible can use a Modern Translation to their benefit. Those who have no authority are tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.
Now, you may protest and claim that we could get spiritually corrupted by them. Well, you read them to criticize them, right?
So will you be corrupted if you do that? Surely not.
They are not my final Word of authority, and I would never tell somebody to look to Modern Bibles if they do not believe in a perfect Word of God (Which is the KJV). Only a person who has a perfect Bible can use a Modern Translation to their benefit. Those who have no authority are tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.
Now, you may protest and claim that we could get spiritually corrupted by them. Well, you read them to criticize them, right?
So will you be corrupted if you do that? Surely not.
-
1
- Show all
Here are some examples of difficult passages or verses that I believe Modern Bibles help to update in certain instances (But yet these translations should never be used alone as a complete substitute for the perfect Word of God, i.e., the King James Bible).
#1. The word “conversation” in the KJB is an archaic word, and it means “behavior” in our modern understanding of Ephesians 4:22.
#2. The archaic word “anon” in the KJB means “immediately.”
#3. Isaiah 26:10 in the New King James says, “Let grace be shown to the wicked, Yet he will not learn righteousness; In the land of uprightness he will deal unjustly, And will not behold the majesty of the LORD.” But in the KJB, it says, “Let favour be shewed to the wicked,” instead. While favor and grace are the same things, it is just more clear in that this verse refers to grace. Again, I am not looking to correct the KJV by any means. But the Modern Translation simply helps to give clarity here. Meaning, there are Christians today who have not changed in their approach towards sin and its consequences when they were shown God’s grace.
#4. Romans 3:25 (could be misunderstood as talking about forgiveness of a believer’s past sins when it is talking about God holding back punishment in the Old Testament).
#5. Job 40:17 talks about stones in reference to pillar stones (Which would be legs or thighs). However, Modern bibles directly say “thighs” of this Sauropod dinosaur (i.e., like a Brontosaurus). So it gives a more straightforward meaning. Again, the KJV is not in error here, it is just more obscure in meaning, which is a part of God’s plain in our studying to discover such a truth.
#6. Ephesians 5:16 says, “redeeming the time,” but in some Modern bibles, it clears up the meaning by saying, “making the most of your time.”
#7. In Philippians 3:13 - before means ahead. - Websters 1913
#8. The word “proveth” in Deuteronomy 13:3 is not as clear. It actually means to “test.” God tests you to see whether you truly love the LORD your God with all your heart, with and with all your soul, etcetera. This definition is confirmed by both the 1828 and 1913 Webster’s Dictionary, and it aligns correctly with Modern Translations (in this instance). The word “test” is a more clearer rendering than “prove.” In 1 Thessalonians 5:21, as well. Granted, this again is not an error by any means.
#9. The word “given” in John 5:26 suggests from our Modern understanding that the Father was giving Jesus “eternal life” for the very first time ever. I say this because another Christian I have talked with on a Christian forum holds to this wrong interpretation. However, clearly, this is not the case because John 1:4 teaches us that the Word (Logos) had life in His eternal state. John 5:26 says: “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;” A more up-to-date word for the word “given” would be “allowed” (Which is what ERV says). Note: In Greek, it can also be translated as “granted.” (Note: Keep in mind I have a huge hate on for the Revised Version and it makes me want to puke).
#10. The word “worship.” (See my write-up here).
#11. King James Bible says vexed in Isaiah 63:10. While the KJB is the pure and divine Word, it’s more apparent in Scripture in our Modern understanding to use the word grieved as Modern bibles say because it points back to the New Testament on this topic.
KJB - “But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.”
New King James Version
“But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit; So He turned Himself against them as an enemy, And He fought against them.”
#12. Acts 17:26, by “one blood” is best understood as referring to “one man” (as Modern Bibles say). Again, they are saying the same thing, but the Modern Bible simply helps our understanding here.
#13. Jeremiah 4:27 - GWT, which is considered to be one of the worst translations, and a paraphrase at times does provide a clearer understanding of this verse in what the KJB says. The KJB is 100% correct. It’s the perfect Word. However, the GWT brings out the meaning more clearly by saying, “This is what the LORD says: The whole earth will be ruined, although I will not destroy it completely.”
#14. The body that casts the shadow. (Colossians 2:17) (GWT). In other words, God’s Word Translation helps to flesh out what the KJB says more clearly here).
#15. The word “commit” in John 2:24 is more clearly rendered as “entrusted.”
#16. The word “hell” is also less clear in the KJB. While I am not encouraging one to become a Greek scholar, they should, at the very least, have a cursory knowledge and understanding that there are different Greek words used for the word “hell” to gain a proper understanding behind the different usages of this word. Hades, Gehenna, and Tartaroo are three words that need to be studied more in-depth to understand what these words truly say. Granted, I am not saying the KJB is in error by any means. The word “hell” is still a correct translation for all these Greek words, but like words in our English language, the Bible has homonyms within it. Knowing the differences in the Greek words will only aid one’s support more clearly in what the KJB says.
#17. 2 Corinthians 11:4 sounds like you could put up with a person who preaches another Jesus. But the Modern Translations in this instance give clarity to suggest that this is in reference to Paul criticizing the Corinthians for wrongfully putting up with those who preach another Jesus. See Biblehub.com.
There are more examples I could give, but I did not want to make my post too long.
#1. The word “conversation” in the KJB is an archaic word, and it means “behavior” in our modern understanding of Ephesians 4:22.
#2. The archaic word “anon” in the KJB means “immediately.”
#3. Isaiah 26:10 in the New King James says, “Let grace be shown to the wicked, Yet he will not learn righteousness; In the land of uprightness he will deal unjustly, And will not behold the majesty of the LORD.” But in the KJB, it says, “Let favour be shewed to the wicked,” instead. While favor and grace are the same things, it is just more clear in that this verse refers to grace. Again, I am not looking to correct the KJV by any means. But the Modern Translation simply helps to give clarity here. Meaning, there are Christians today who have not changed in their approach towards sin and its consequences when they were shown God’s grace.
#4. Romans 3:25 (could be misunderstood as talking about forgiveness of a believer’s past sins when it is talking about God holding back punishment in the Old Testament).
#5. Job 40:17 talks about stones in reference to pillar stones (Which would be legs or thighs). However, Modern bibles directly say “thighs” of this Sauropod dinosaur (i.e., like a Brontosaurus). So it gives a more straightforward meaning. Again, the KJV is not in error here, it is just more obscure in meaning, which is a part of God’s plain in our studying to discover such a truth.
#6. Ephesians 5:16 says, “redeeming the time,” but in some Modern bibles, it clears up the meaning by saying, “making the most of your time.”
#7. In Philippians 3:13 - before means ahead. - Websters 1913
#8. The word “proveth” in Deuteronomy 13:3 is not as clear. It actually means to “test.” God tests you to see whether you truly love the LORD your God with all your heart, with and with all your soul, etcetera. This definition is confirmed by both the 1828 and 1913 Webster’s Dictionary, and it aligns correctly with Modern Translations (in this instance). The word “test” is a more clearer rendering than “prove.” In 1 Thessalonians 5:21, as well. Granted, this again is not an error by any means.
#9. The word “given” in John 5:26 suggests from our Modern understanding that the Father was giving Jesus “eternal life” for the very first time ever. I say this because another Christian I have talked with on a Christian forum holds to this wrong interpretation. However, clearly, this is not the case because John 1:4 teaches us that the Word (Logos) had life in His eternal state. John 5:26 says: “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;” A more up-to-date word for the word “given” would be “allowed” (Which is what ERV says). Note: In Greek, it can also be translated as “granted.” (Note: Keep in mind I have a huge hate on for the Revised Version and it makes me want to puke).
#10. The word “worship.” (See my write-up here).
#11. King James Bible says vexed in Isaiah 63:10. While the KJB is the pure and divine Word, it’s more apparent in Scripture in our Modern understanding to use the word grieved as Modern bibles say because it points back to the New Testament on this topic.
KJB - “But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.”
New King James Version
“But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit; So He turned Himself against them as an enemy, And He fought against them.”
#12. Acts 17:26, by “one blood” is best understood as referring to “one man” (as Modern Bibles say). Again, they are saying the same thing, but the Modern Bible simply helps our understanding here.
#13. Jeremiah 4:27 - GWT, which is considered to be one of the worst translations, and a paraphrase at times does provide a clearer understanding of this verse in what the KJB says. The KJB is 100% correct. It’s the perfect Word. However, the GWT brings out the meaning more clearly by saying, “This is what the LORD says: The whole earth will be ruined, although I will not destroy it completely.”
#14. The body that casts the shadow. (Colossians 2:17) (GWT). In other words, God’s Word Translation helps to flesh out what the KJB says more clearly here).
#15. The word “commit” in John 2:24 is more clearly rendered as “entrusted.”
#16. The word “hell” is also less clear in the KJB. While I am not encouraging one to become a Greek scholar, they should, at the very least, have a cursory knowledge and understanding that there are different Greek words used for the word “hell” to gain a proper understanding behind the different usages of this word. Hades, Gehenna, and Tartaroo are three words that need to be studied more in-depth to understand what these words truly say. Granted, I am not saying the KJB is in error by any means. The word “hell” is still a correct translation for all these Greek words, but like words in our English language, the Bible has homonyms within it. Knowing the differences in the Greek words will only aid one’s support more clearly in what the KJB says.
#17. 2 Corinthians 11:4 sounds like you could put up with a person who preaches another Jesus. But the Modern Translations in this instance give clarity to suggest that this is in reference to Paul criticizing the Corinthians for wrongfully putting up with those who preach another Jesus. See Biblehub.com.
There are more examples I could give, but I did not want to make my post too long.