The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[GRACE_ambassador]

op: error of KJV Only/Core adherents?

bible.ca/b-kjv-only . htm, claims "refuting KJV Only" by feeling that:

"Foremost, we feel that the KJV is an EXCELLENT translation, but not​

the ONLY excellent translation."​

+​

"that the KJV is to be classed as one of several major standards of​

Bible translations including, NASB, RSV, NKJV, ASV, NIV. All these ​

translations are equal in quality and all should be used for Bible​

study."​

So "going By feelings," rather than faith, as KJV Instructs (2Co 5:7),
they do not Deny that KJV Is An "Excellent" Translation, but Do doubt
that It Is God's ONE "Pure/Preserved Book", Alone, Correct?:

So, by faith then, let us prayerfully and Carefully examine the Evidence,
For "the equality of the other Five Different books," Claimed As equal to
The Pure/Preserved Word Of God (KJV), shall we?:

King James Bible 1 John 5:7:
"For There Are Three That Bear Record In Heaven, The Father,
The Word, And The Holy Ghost: And These Three Are One."

Which is Equal?:

NASB 1995
For there are three that testify: ❌ Not equal, Correct?
↑ ↑
Different from, or equal to each other {HOW Confusing!, eh?}?:
↓ ↓
NASB 1977
And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
❌ Not equal, Correct?

RSV
And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
❌ Not equal, Correct?

New King James Version "benefit of the doubt"?
If 'bear record' = 'bear witness', then equal? ✔ ✔, yes?:
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word,
and The Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

ASV
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
❌ Not equal, Correct?

New International Version
For there are three that testify:

❌ Not equal, Correct?

All ( save one ) removing The Sound Doctrine Of The Triune GodHead?
=================================

Thus far we have: NASB, RSV, NKJV, ASV, NIV still equal, Correct?
Next, let's check further, with ↑ ↑ ↑, and examine additional "Evidence",
shall we, since we all 'surely' Love The Lord Jesus Christ, Correct?:

KJV "Lord Jesus Christ" (82 verses w/ 85 Occurrences)

nkjv "Lord Jesus Christ" ( 81 / 84 ) ❌ Almost? But Not equal, Correct?

KJV 2 Corinthians 2:17
"For we are not as many which corrupt The Word Of God"

nkjv
"peddling the word of God" (like the NIV, NASV and RSV)
❌ Not equal, Correct?

KJV Isaiah 66:5
"Hear The Word of The LORD, ye that tremble at His Word; Your brethren
that hated you, that cast you out for My Name's sake, said, Let The LORD
Be Glorified: but He Shall Appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed."

[This means that the LORD Shall Appear, which shall occur at the
Second Coming of Christ.]

nkjv ❌ Not equal, Correct?:

"Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at His word: "Your brethren
who hated you, who cast you out for My name's sake, said, 'Let the LORD
be glorified, that we may see your joy.' But they shall be ashamed."

(Like the NIV, NASV, RSV and ASV, the Second Coming is wholly omitted
from This Scripture.) How is that Equality? ❌ Not equal, Correct?

----------------------------------------

Thus, More Evidence that confirms we are, by faith, In God!, And In:

His Unchanging Pure/Preserved KJV only/core adherents:​

Even As He Is UNchanging!:

"Jesus Christ The Same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."​

(Hebrew 13:8 KJV)​

Amen.

ps. If this sufficient Evidence Has helped any Christ-lover, then
we invite such to also be Edified And Encouraged In:

Handling The Word Of Life!​

 

[wattie]

op: error of KJV Only/Core adherents?

bible.ca/b-kjv-only . htm, claims "refuting KJV Only" by feeling that:

"Foremost, we feel that the KJV is an EXCELLENT translation, but not​

the ONLY excellent translation."​

+​

"that the KJV is to be classed as one of several major standards of​

Bible translations including, NASB, RSV, NKJV, ASV, NIV. All these ​

translations are equal in quality and all should be used for Bible​

study."​

So "going By feelings," rather than faith, as KJV Instructs (2Co 5:7),
they do not Deny that KJV Is An "Excellent" Translation, but Do doubt
that It Is God's ONE "Pure/Preserved Book", Alone, Correct?:

So, by faith then, let us prayerfully and Carefully examine the Evidence,
For "the equality of the other Five Different books," Claimed As equal to
The Pure/Preserved Word Of God (KJV), shall we?:

King James Bible 1 John 5:7:
"For There Are Three That Bear Record In Heaven, The Father,
The Word, And The Holy Ghost: And These Three Are One."

Which is Equal?:

NASB 1995
For there are three that testify: ❌ Not equal, Correct?
↑ ↑
Different from, or equal to each other {HOW Confusing!, eh?}?:
↓ ↓
NASB 1977
And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
❌ Not equal, Correct?

RSV
And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
❌ Not equal, Correct?

New King James Version "benefit of the doubt"?
If 'bear record' = 'bear witness', then equal? ✔ ✔, yes?:
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word,
and The Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

ASV
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
❌ Not equal, Correct?

New International Version
For there are three that testify:

❌ Not equal, Correct?

All ( save one ) removing The Sound Doctrine Of The Triune GodHead?
=================================

Thus far we have: NASB, RSV, NKJV, ASV, NIV still equal, Correct?
Next, let's check further, with ↑ ↑ ↑, and examine additional "Evidence",
shall we, since we all 'surely' Love The Lord Jesus Christ, Correct?:

KJV "Lord Jesus Christ" (82 verses w/ 85 Occurrences)

nkjv "Lord Jesus Christ" ( 81 / 84 ) ❌ Almost? But Not equal, Correct?

KJV 2 Corinthians 2:17
"For we are not as many which corrupt The Word Of God"

nkjv
"peddling the word of God" (like the NIV, NASV and RSV)
❌ Not equal, Correct?

KJV Isaiah 66:5
"Hear The Word of The LORD, ye that tremble at His Word; Your brethren
that hated you, that cast you out for My Name's sake, said, Let The LORD
Be Glorified: but He Shall Appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed."

[This means that the LORD Shall Appear, which shall occur at the
Second Coming of Christ.]

nkjv ❌ Not equal, Correct?:

"Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at His word: "Your brethren
who hated you, who cast you out for My name's sake, said, 'Let the LORD
be glorified, that we may see your joy.' But they shall be ashamed."

(Like the NIV, NASV, RSV and ASV, the Second Coming is wholly omitted
from This Scripture.) How is that Equality? ❌ Not equal, Correct?

----------------------------------------

Thus, More Evidence that confirms we are, by faith, In God!, And In:

His Unchanging Pure/Preserved KJV only/core adherents:​

Even As He Is UNchanging!:

"Jesus Christ The Same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."​

(Hebrew 13:8 KJV)​

Amen.

ps. If this sufficient Evidence Has helped any Christ-lover, then
we invite such to also be Edified And Encouraged In:

Handling The Word Of Life!​

I found this a little hard to read because you have entire verses in the KJV .. but they are only part in the other books. Are they really broken down that much? I would have thought the other bibles have similar length passages, but with different wording, like most comparisons. I must check myself.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I found this a little hard to read because you have entire verses in the KJV .. but they are only part in the other books. Are they really broken down that much? I would have thought the other bibles have similar length passages, but with different wording, like most comparisons. I must check myself.

In my write-up I sent you, one of my reasons out of the 101 Reasons for the KJB says the following:

Early Witnesses of the 17 omitted verses in Modern Bibles or the Critical Text. Quotes from the socalled: “early church fathers” confirm the TR / KJB (Byzantine) line. Historical documentation of these men confirms the existence of these 17 omitted verses in history, which are wrongfully removed in Modern Bibles and the Critical Text. (See: https://www.scionofzion.com/olv.htm) (Note: These so-called “early church fathers” were actually into Catholic practices, but the fact that this is true only proves all the more that their words on this matter are not biased) (Note: Please keep in mind that I believe Catholicism is unbiblical) (See here to learn more about how the socalled “early church fathers” are a door to Rome).

Here is another reason I provided that may help, as well.

When comparing the KJB vs. Modern Bibles: The Critical Text of Westcott-Hort differs from the TR (Textus Receptus) mostly by deletions in 9,970 words out of 140,521, giving a total of 7% difference. In the 480-page edition of the Trinitarian Bible Society Textus Receptus, this would amount to almost 34 pages, the equivalent of the final two books of the New Testament, Jude, and Revelation” (Thomas Strouse, Review of “From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man,” November 2000). Jack Moorman made an extensive study of the differences between the modern critical text and the Received Text and published his conclusions in Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version--A Closer Look. He found that there are 2,886 words omitted in the Nestle/Aland text. THIS IS EQUIVALENT TO OMITTING THE ENTIRE BOOKS OF 1 AND 2 PETER FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. In fact, if you are interested in seeing a sampling of the many changes between the KJB vs. Modern Bibles, you can check out 776 of them here by Dr. Ken Matto). Of course, many of these changes are for the worse and not for the better.

 

[jamessb]

The King James translation is just that -- a translation. Nothing more, nothing less. It was based, in part, on earlier translations of a limited set of sources and has been changed considerably since 1611. There have been a considerable numbers of sources discovered in the intervening 413 years, as well as advances in textual criticism and understanding of the early languages and the societies that used them.

There are many excellent translations available today that are excellent. I prefer the NRSVue, the NET Bible (especially the full edition with notes), and the NIV. There is no reason to stick with a translation made by men over 400 years ago; it is not the Bible, it is an interpretation of ancient languages, written in a language that is a) dead and b) difficult for modern readers to fully comprehend. It may have been "the Bible" to the English-speaking world for centuries but it's time has past.

 

[jamessb]

In my write-up I sent you, one of my reasons out of the 101 Reasons for the KJB says the following:

Early Witnesses of the 17 omitted verses in Modern Bibles or the Critical Text. Quotes from the socalled: “early church fathers” confirm the TR / KJB (Byzantine) line. Historical documentation of these men confirms the existence of these 17 omitted verses in history, which are wrongfully removed in Modern Bibles and the Critical Text. (See: https://www.scionofzion.com/olv.htm) (Note: These so-called “early church fathers” were actually into Catholic practices, but the fact that this is true only proves all the more that their words on this matter are not biased) (Note: Please keep in mind that I believe Catholicism is unbiblical) (See here to learn more about how the socalled “early church fathers” are a door to Rome).

Here is another reason I provided that may help, as well.

When comparing the KJB vs. Modern Bibles: The Critical Text of Westcott-Hort differs from the TR (Textus Receptus) mostly by deletions in 9,970 words out of 140,521, giving a total of 7% difference. In the 480-page edition of the Trinitarian Bible Society Textus Receptus, this would amount to almost 34 pages, the equivalent of the final two books of the New Testament, Jude, and Revelation” (Thomas Strouse, Review of “From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man,” November 2000). Jack Moorman made an extensive study of the differences between the modern critical text and the Received Text and published his conclusions in Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version--A Closer Look. He found that there are 2,886 words omitted in the Nestle/Aland text. THIS IS EQUIVALENT TO OMITTING THE ENTIRE BOOKS OF 1 AND 2 PETER FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. In fact, if you are interested in seeing a sampling of the many changes between the KJB vs. Modern Bibles, you can check out 776 of them here by Dr. Ken Matto). Of course, many of these changes are for the worse and not for the better.

This is what my professors in graduate school warned us about: finding data to support your predetermined "findings". Additionally, classifying the various translations available today as "Modern Bibles" and therefore declaring them as inferior to the KJV is nonsense. Westcott Hort was published in 1881, 143 years ago. No reputable modern translation is based on that old New Testament source.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

This is what my professors in graduate school warned us about: finding data to support your predetermined "findings".

Textual Reasons are a small part of my 101 Reasons for the KJB being the pure Word of God for today. I have come up with 10 categories that support the KJB. The evidence for the KJB is overwhelming but your professors are a part of supporting the Modern Bibles and Textual Criticism. They only live in that universe and thus they have only see from that lens or perspective.

Additionally, classifying the various translations available today as "Modern Bibles" and therefore declaring them as inferior to the KJV is nonsense.

It’s only nonsense if you believe the things fed to you by Textual Critics and or their propagandists. Before Richard Simon, you would not really know about Originals Onlyism and or its mutated offshoots.

Westcott Hort was published in 1881, 143 years ago. No reputable modern translation is based on that old New Testament source.

Textual Critic Eldon Jay Epp believes the Nestle and Aland text barely differs from the Westcott and Hort text.

Here is a quote from Textual Critic Eldon Jay Epp:

“The thing to see is that the text of 100 years ago (i.e., in 1980, the text of 1881, Hort’s compilation) is barely different from the text being published as the 28th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece. To offer up-to-date evidence of this point, I have made a fresh comparison of the 1881 compilation and the current edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation….” ~ Quote by: Eldon Jay Epp.​

You can find out Eldon Jay Epp’s compilation study or findings here. To make matters worse: Westcott and Hort’s New Testament Critical Greek Translation is based on two inferior manuscripts that disagreed with each other in thousands of places. One manuscript is called the Codex Sinaiticus, and the other one is called “Codex Vaticanus.” Even the Nestle and Aland is based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The 27th edition of the Nestle and Aland (1993) says it is supervised by the Vatican. All your Modern Bibles are based on the 28th edition of the Nestle and Aland.

But long before this Nestle and Aland NT Greek Critical text (27th edition), Catholic ideas were added over time in Modern Bibles. There are 6-7 Catholic ideas promoted in the Revised Version in 1881 and it increased with the NEB, GNT, NASB, NIV, etcetera. So Catholic teachings are subtly promoted in Modern Bibles. Such false teachings started off slowly, and gradually increased. There is of course a lot more than this.

If you knew only a fraction of what I know, you would want to puke at the deceptions involved in the Modern Bible Movement.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The King James translation is just that -- a translation.

God’s Word teaches us that God translates languages. At Pentecost, in Acts chapter 2: Certain Jewish men each spoke in their own tongue, and yet God translated their language so that they could understand each other with no problems (See: Acts 2:5-13). This is a pure translation done by God. Can a translation of God’s Word (Scripture) be divinely inspired and or perfect? Well, we learn in the Old Testament: Joseph had spoken Egyptian, and yet these words that record this very fact are written in Hebrew (Genesis 42:23). In the New Testament, we learn: that Paul had spoken to the Jews in Hebrew and yet these words were recorded in the Greek within the Scriptures (See: Acts 21:40, and Acts 22:1-2). Again, this is a perfect translation unless you doubt God’s Word. In addition, at the cross: The words on a sign said, “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.” These words were written in different languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Latin) that were translated for us (John 19:19-20). In addition, Jesus said, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). In other words, if God indeed divinely granted us the translation of the King James Bible (as I believe He has), it would align perfectly with the consistency of other translations of God we read about in Scripture.

it is not the Bible

Sure it is.
You just don’t have all the facts from a faith based biblical perspective, and Bible history.

There is no reason to stick with a translation made by men over 400 years ago;

There are 101 Reasons.

It was based, in part, on earlier translations of a limited set of sources and has been changed considerably since 1611. There have been a considerable numbers of sources discovered in the intervening 413 years, as well as advances in textual criticism and understanding of the early languages and the societies that used them.

There is a lot of misinformation to shoot down the King James Bible by Modern Scholarship because they have jobs to keep and money to make. You should ask yourself why would your side deceptively move some of the words from 1 John 5:8 to fill in the missing gap in 1 John 5:7? You can say that 1 John 5:7 should not be in the Bible, but for your side to employ such a deception does not make them look innocent here.

There are many excellent translations available today that are excellent. I prefer the NRSVue,

Here is the history:

NRSVue (2021) (An update of the New Revised Standard Version).
NRSV (1989)
RSV (1952)
ASV (1901)
RV (1881) (Westcott and Hort) (George Vance Smith who was a Unitarian on the committee). Westcott and Hort fought to have him on their team and even threatened to quit if he was not included.

Aug. – Hort to Lightfoot: “It is, I think, difficult to measure the weight of acceptance won beforehand for the Revision by the single fact of our welcoming an Unitarian, if only the Company perseveres in its present serious and faithful spirit.” (Life, Vol.II, p.140).

Oct. 15th – Hort: “…the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit…Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.” (Life, Vol.I, p.430).

1890 Mar. 4th – Westcott: “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history – I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did – yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere.”

“In matters of textual criticism the Bible is to be treated like any other ancient book. No special considerations are to be made concerning its claims of inspiration and preservation” (Westcott and Hort , The New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction and Appendix, 1881).

According to Arthur Westcott, Bishop Westcott also had such experiences with spirits. His son writes, "The Communion of Saints seems particularly associated with Peterborough. He had an extraordinary power of realizing this Communion. It was his delight to be alone at night in the great Cathedral, for there he could meditate and pray in full sympathy with all that was good and great in the past. . . There he always had abundant company." Westcott’s daughter met him returning from one of his customary meditations in the solitary darkness of the chapel at Auckland castle. She said to him, " I expect you do not feel alone?" "Oh, no," he said, "It is full."

Matthew 1:25
KJB: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

RSV: but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.
NAB (Catholic Bible): He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son whom he named Jesus.

Romans 8:1
KJB: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

RSV: There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
NWT: Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation
NAB: There is no condemnation now for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 1:14
KJB: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

RSV: in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
NWT: by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins.
NAB: Through him we have redemption, the forgiveness of our sins.

the NET Bible (especially the full edition with notes),

Matthew 19:9
KJB: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

NET: Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9 in the NAS1977, NAS95, NET, and NTFE says that one can divorce their wife for immorality instead of fornication (KJV). Meaning, the word “immorality” is ambiguous as to what kind of sin is being referred to here. So if one wanted to divorce their wife for lying, they could do so if they trusted these translations instead of the King James Bible.

The latter half of Romans 14:10 and all of Romans 14:12. This is again another example of an assault on the divine nature of Jesus Christ in the Bible. For comparison, you can see Romans 14:10b, and Romans 14:12 between the KJV and other translations as stated below:

Romans 14:10b, and Romans 14:12:

KJV-
10 “...for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
12 “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”

NET -
10 “...For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.”
12 “Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God.”

NWT-
10 “...For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God;
12 So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God.”

and the NIV. ,

Check out Keith Piper’s PDF here:

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

it is an interpretation of ancient languages, written in a language that is a) dead and b) difficult for modern readers to fully comprehend. It may have been "the Bible" to the English-speaking world for centuries but it's time has past.

God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

@jamessb

The King James Bible translators did not employ Modern Textual Criticism. Modern textual criticism is the heretical theory behind the modern Bible versions. It assumes that God has not precisely preserved the Scripture, but that it had to be recovered in modern times by textual critics. It produces uncertainty concerning the details of Scripture. A confident “thus saith the Lord” is replaced with “this reading has more support than that reading.” The congregation’s one Bible standard is replaced with a multiplicity of conflicting Bibles.

 

[Nehemiah6]

This is what my professors in graduate school warned us about: finding data to support your predetermined "findings".

Your professors were probably already committed to the promotion of modern versions. Just about every seminary and Bible school bought into the hype that the modern versions were superior to the KJB

Additionally, classifying the various translations available today as "Modern Bibles" and therefore declaring them as inferior to the KJV is nonsense.

Not if you have carefully researched the issue (which I have). You can place the KJB (based on the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts) in one column, and all the other English translations in another column (all based on the Critical texts). And there are very serious differences which affect Bible doctrines.

Westcott Hort was published in 1881, 143 years ago. No reputable modern translation is based on that old New Testament source.

This comment shows that you really do not know anything about this matter. Following W&H, other critics simply used the Greek text of W&H as their primary text. So you have Nestle's text, and you have the Nestle-Aland text, and then you have the UBS text, but they are all fundamentally the same. And in marked contrast to the Received Text. Taking Matthew 6:13 as an example, we have the gratuitous OMISSION of fourteen words which are of great significance and value:

CRITICAL TEXTS
Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.
Westcott and Hort 1881
καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.
Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.
English Standard Version
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil....
International Standard Version
And never bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.' .. ["evil one" instead of "evil"]
New International Version
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one...
******************************************************************************************
RECEIVED TEXT
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. Ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν.
Greek Orthodox Church 1904
καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν.
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοῦς αἰῶνας ἀμήν
King James Bible
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

The omitted phrase -- a doxology -- is absent from Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, And Codex Bezae. (the MOST CORRUPT manuscripts). But "While the phrase is absent from the earliest Greek Bible manuscripts, it is present in the majority of later Greek manuscripts and an increasing number of theological writings as time went on." (Got Questions)

The Peshitta is a Syriac translation of the Bible from the 2nd century, and it has the doxology. v.13 and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory to the age of ages

 

[jamessb]

Textual Reasons are a small part of my 101 Reasons for the KJB being the pure Word of God for today. I have come up with 10 categories that support the KJB. The evidence for the KJB is overwhelming but your professors are a part of supporting the Modern Bibles and Textual Criticism. They only live in that universe and thus they have only see from that lens or perspective.



It’s only nonsense if you believe the things fed to you by Textual Critics and or their propagandists. Before Richard Simon, you would not really know about Originals Onlyism and or its mutated offshoots.



Textual Critic Eldon Jay Epp believes the Nestle and Aland text barely differs from the Westcott and Hort text.

Here is a quote from Textual Critic Eldon Jay Epp:

“The thing to see is that the text of 100 years ago (i.e., in 1980, the text of 1881, Hort’s compilation) is barely different from the text being published as the 28th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece. To offer up-to-date evidence of this point, I have made a fresh comparison of the 1881 compilation and the current edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation….” ~ Quote by: Eldon Jay Epp.​

You can find out Eldon Jay Epp’s compilation study or findings here. To make matters worse: Westcott and Hort’s New Testament Critical Greek Translation is based on two inferior manuscripts that disagreed with each other in thousands of places. One manuscript is called the Codex Sinaiticus, and the other one is called “Codex Vaticanus.” Even the Nestle and Aland is based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The 27th edition of the Nestle and Aland (1993) says it is supervised by the Vatican. All your Modern Bibles are based on the 28th edition of the Nestle and Aland.

But long before this Nestle and Aland NT Greek Critical text (27th edition), Catholic ideas were added over time in Modern Bibles. There are 6-7 Catholic ideas promoted in the Revised Version in 1881 and it increased with the NEB, GNT, NASB, NIV, etcetera. So Catholic teachings are subtly promoted in Modern Bibles. Such false teachings started off slowly, and gradually increased. There is of course a lot more than this.

If you knew only a fraction of what I know, you would want to puke at the deceptions involved in the Modern Bible Movement.

a) I was in graduate school many years ago. Apparently you don't understand past tense.

b) Judging by your post, I know more than you know. If you want to find a thousand reasons why the KJV is the best bible you would still be wrong. It is an outdated translation created to justify a secular king's version of Christianity to glorify himself.

 

[jamessb]

God’s Word teaches us that God translates languages. At Pentecost, in Acts chapter 2: Certain Jewish men each spoke in their own tongue, and yet God translated their language so that they could understand each other with no problems (See: Acts 2:5-13). This is a pure translation done by God. Can a translation of God’s Word (Scripture) be divinely inspired and or perfect? Well, we learn in the Old Testament: Joseph had spoken Egyptian, and yet these words that record this very fact are written in Hebrew (Genesis 42:23). In the New Testament, we learn: that Paul had spoken to the Jews in Hebrew and yet these words were recorded in the Greek within the Scriptures (See: Acts 21:40, and Acts 22:1-2). Again, this is a perfect translation unless you doubt God’s Word. In addition, at the cross: The words on a sign said, “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.” These words were written in different languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Latin) that were translated for us (John 19:19-20). In addition, Jesus said, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). In other words, if God indeed divinely granted us the translation of the King James Bible (as I believe He has), it would align perfectly with the consistency of other translations of God we read about in Scripture.



Sure it is.
You just don’t have all the facts from a faith based biblical perspective, and Bible history.



There are 101 Reasons.



There is a lot of misinformation to shoot down the King James Bible by Modern Scholarship because they have jobs to keep and money to make. You should ask yourself why would your side deceptively move some of the words from 1 John 5:8 to fill in the missing gap in 1 John 5:7? You can say that 1 John 5:7 should not be in the Bible, but for your side to employ such a deception does not make them look innocent here.



Here is the history:

NRSVue (2021) (An update of the New Revised Standard Version).
NRSV (1989)
RSV (1952)
ASV (1901)
RV (1881) (Westcott and Hort) (George Vance Smith who was a Unitarian on the committee). Westcott and Hort fought to have him on their team and even threatened to quit if he was not included.

Aug. – Hort to Lightfoot: “It is, I think, difficult to measure the weight of acceptance won beforehand for the Revision by the single fact of our welcoming an Unitarian, if only the Company perseveres in its present serious and faithful spirit.” (Life, Vol.II, p.140).

Oct. 15th – Hort: “…the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit…Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.” (Life, Vol.I, p.430).

1890 Mar. 4th – Westcott: “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history – I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did – yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere.”

“In matters of textual criticism the Bible is to be treated like any other ancient book. No special considerations are to be made concerning its claims of inspiration and preservation” (Westcott and Hort , The New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction and Appendix, 1881).

According to Arthur Westcott, Bishop Westcott also had such experiences with spirits. His son writes, "The Communion of Saints seems particularly associated with Peterborough. He had an extraordinary power of realizing this Communion. It was his delight to be alone at night in the great Cathedral, for there he could meditate and pray in full sympathy with all that was good and great in the past. . . There he always had abundant company." Westcott’s daughter met him returning from one of his customary meditations in the solitary darkness of the chapel at Auckland castle. She said to him, " I expect you do not feel alone?" "Oh, no," he said, "It is full."

Matthew 1:25
KJB: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

RSV: but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.
NAB (Catholic Bible): He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son whom he named Jesus.

Romans 8:1
KJB: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

RSV: There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
NWT: Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation
NAB: There is no condemnation now for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 1:14
KJB: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

RSV: in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
NWT: by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins.
NAB: Through him we have redemption, the forgiveness of our sins.



Matthew 19:9
KJB: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

NET: Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9 in the NAS1977, NAS95, NET, and NTFE says that one can divorce their wife for immorality instead of fornication (KJV). Meaning, the word “immorality” is ambiguous as to what kind of sin is being referred to here. So if one wanted to divorce their wife for lying, they could do so if they trusted these translations instead of the King James Bible.

The latter half of Romans 14:10 and all of Romans 14:12. This is again another example of an assault on the divine nature of Jesus Christ in the Bible. For comparison, you can see Romans 14:10b, and Romans 14:12 between the KJV and other translations as stated below:

Romans 14:10b, and Romans 14:12:

KJV-
10 “...for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
12 “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”

NET -
10 “...For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.”
12 “Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God.”

NWT-
10 “...For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God;
12 So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God.”



Check out Keith Piper’s PDF here:

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf



God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).

You wrote "There is a lot of misinformation to shoot down the King James Bible by Modern Scholarship because they have jobs to keep and money to make", which "says it all" about your understanding.

And "you just don’t have all the facts from a faith based biblical perspective, and Bible history." This also explains where you're coming from.


Your lengthy, error-filled post isn't worth more than this reply. You believe propaganda; I believe facts.

 

[jamessb]

God’s Word teaches us that God translates languages. At Pentecost, in Acts chapter 2: Certain Jewish men each spoke in their own tongue, and yet God translated their language so that they could understand each other with no problems (See: Acts 2:5-13). This is a pure translation done by God. Can a translation of God’s Word (Scripture) be divinely inspired and or perfect? Well, we learn in the Old Testament: Joseph had spoken Egyptian, and yet these words that record this very fact are written in Hebrew (Genesis 42:23). In the New Testament, we learn: that Paul had spoken to the Jews in Hebrew and yet these words were recorded in the Greek within the Scriptures (See: Acts 21:40, and Acts 22:1-2). Again, this is a perfect translation unless you doubt God’s Word. In addition, at the cross: The words on a sign said, “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.” These words were written in different languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Latin) that were translated for us (John 19:19-20). In addition, Jesus said, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). In other words, if God indeed divinely granted us the translation of the King James Bible (as I believe He has), it would align perfectly with the consistency of other translations of God we read about in Scripture.



Sure it is.
You just don’t have all the facts from a faith based biblical perspective, and Bible history.



There are 101 Reasons.



There is a lot of misinformation to shoot down the King James Bible by Modern Scholarship because they have jobs to keep and money to make. You should ask yourself why would your side deceptively move some of the words from 1 John 5:8 to fill in the missing gap in 1 John 5:7? You can say that 1 John 5:7 should not be in the Bible, but for your side to employ such a deception does not make them look innocent here.



Here is the history:

NRSVue (2021) (An update of the New Revised Standard Version).
NRSV (1989)
RSV (1952)
ASV (1901)
RV (1881) (Westcott and Hort) (George Vance Smith who was a Unitarian on the committee). Westcott and Hort fought to have him on their team and even threatened to quit if he was not included.

Aug. – Hort to Lightfoot: “It is, I think, difficult to measure the weight of acceptance won beforehand for the Revision by the single fact of our welcoming an Unitarian, if only the Company perseveres in its present serious and faithful spirit.” (Life, Vol.II, p.140).

Oct. 15th – Hort: “…the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit…Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.” (Life, Vol.I, p.430).

1890 Mar. 4th – Westcott: “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history – I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did – yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere.”

“In matters of textual criticism the Bible is to be treated like any other ancient book. No special considerations are to be made concerning its claims of inspiration and preservation” (Westcott and Hort , The New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction and Appendix, 1881).

According to Arthur Westcott, Bishop Westcott also had such experiences with spirits. His son writes, "The Communion of Saints seems particularly associated with Peterborough. He had an extraordinary power of realizing this Communion. It was his delight to be alone at night in the great Cathedral, for there he could meditate and pray in full sympathy with all that was good and great in the past. . . There he always had abundant company." Westcott’s daughter met him returning from one of his customary meditations in the solitary darkness of the chapel at Auckland castle. She said to him, " I expect you do not feel alone?" "Oh, no," he said, "It is full."

Matthew 1:25
KJB: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

RSV: but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.
NAB (Catholic Bible): He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son whom he named Jesus.

Romans 8:1
KJB: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

RSV: There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
NWT: Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation
NAB: There is no condemnation now for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 1:14
KJB: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

RSV: in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
NWT: by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins.
NAB: Through him we have redemption, the forgiveness of our sins.



Matthew 19:9
KJB: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

NET: Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9 in the NAS1977, NAS95, NET, and NTFE says that one can divorce their wife for immorality instead of fornication (KJV). Meaning, the word “immorality” is ambiguous as to what kind of sin is being referred to here. So if one wanted to divorce their wife for lying, they could do so if they trusted these translations instead of the King James Bible.

The latter half of Romans 14:10 and all of Romans 14:12. This is again another example of an assault on the divine nature of Jesus Christ in the Bible. For comparison, you can see Romans 14:10b, and Romans 14:12 between the KJV and other translations as stated below:

Romans 14:10b, and Romans 14:12:

KJV-
10 “...for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
12 “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”

NET -
10 “...For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.”
12 “Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God.”

NWT-
10 “...For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God;
12 So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God.”



Check out Keith Piper’s PDF here:

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf



God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).

If you're so bent on accepting the King James translation as the Word of God, why don' t you quote from it???

"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

 

[jamessb]

The King James translation was created by a group of scholars to glorify a secular king. It borrowed extensively from earlier translations (while removing the side-note commentaries that didn't promote a secular authority) and was based on a limited set of sources compared to what has been discovered in the past 400+ years).

The KJV was edited a bit in1612, 1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, or 1769 . So, which version is perfect?

Since the first King James Bible rolled off the press in 1611 to the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today, there have been - are you ready - there have been a grand total of 421 word changes! So, which one is the pure word of God?

 

[jamessb]

This is the post that started this thread. I agree with it 100%.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jude 3:4 says to earnestly 'contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.'

When the apostles passed on the teachings of Jesus and their own teachings as led by the Spirit, and when their teachings were written down in gospels and epistles, they did not write them in Late Modern English. They wrote in Greek.

There are some people who teach basically that the King James Bible is word-for-word inspired. That would require basically the canon of scripture to be open until 1611, turning translators into something like inspired scripture writers.

I've seen a variety of arguments for KJV onlyism. One is to point to flaws of other manuscript compilations that some other translation was translated from. But that doesn't prove the KJV is an inerrant inspired translation.

Another argument is that the Bible you have 'in your hand' needs to be inspired. But I could hold an NIV or NASB in my hand, too. That doesn't make it inspired.

Another argument is that there has to be a 'final authority.' It doesn't make any sense to use that to argue that the KJV is an inspired inerrant translation.

Some KJV-onlyist argue that it was the only translation 'authorized' by a king. But Henry VIII had the Great Bible translated, and that doesn't make it an inerrant translation.

Yet another argument is to take a verse about how pure or preserved the word of God is, quoting a verse about it. But those verses existed in the actual original languages scripture was written in, and they show up in the other translations as well. So how is that an argument for KJV onlyism?

The fatal flaw of KJV-onlyism is that it is an ignorant back-woods idea made up by preachers or others some time after the KJV was translated, and not part of 'the faith once delivered to the saints. The apostles did teach it. The Bible doesn't teach it. People got saved through believing the word of God before King James was born.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The King James translation was created by a group of scholars to glorify a secular king. It borrowed extensively from earlier translations (while removing the side-note commentaries that didn't promote a secular authority) and was based on a limited set of sources compared to what has been discovered in the past 400+ years).

All MISINFORMATION and DISINFORMATION here. I won't even bother giving a rebuttal.

 

[jamessb]

Precious friend, I apologize; I thought I double-checked them:

"Fixed", correcting the error of my ways:

Is The Body Of Christ "The Lamb's wife" (Part 1)?
Is The Body Of Christ "The Lamb's wife" (Part 2)?

Please enjoy studying them:

View attachment 260635

The word "study" in the KJV does not mean the same thing as the word "study" in modern English. It means "be diligent", "make every effort", "do your best", etc. It is necessary to translate the KJV into modern language if it is to be accurately understood.

 

[jamessb]

But the Bible says, “There is one body,…” (Ephesians 4:4).

So your not speaking in line with Scripture here.

So according to you, John was mistaken when he addressed the seven churches in Revelation.

 

[jamessb]

No. All references to the body of Christ is the one and only corporate body of Christ.

Ephesians 3:6 says,
“That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:”

This verse is referring to the sole corporate body of Christ because it is referring to how the Gentiles are made to be fellow heirs of the same body. If you read back at the end of Ephesians 2 this is clear in context.

Nothing is Scripture teaches about how there are local bodies of Christ.

Ephesians 4:4 would not be true if you believe it is referring to the local body at Ephesus. It would no longer be one body but many bodies. The book or church you go to that teaches this is not allowing you to accept the plain reading of the Bible on this matter.

So why did John address seven churches in Revelation?

 

[jamessb]

Also, see this article here:

https://revelationlogic.com/articles/the-messages-to-the-seven-churches/

Seven churches? You said there was one body (the church) earlier.

 

[jamessb]

I have never seen KJB believers fight over which King James Bible edition to use. Most of them believe that either the 1611 version, the 1769 (Authorized Version), or the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa. 1900) are all fine to use.



American Standard Version is the update of the Revised Version by Westcott and Hort and their committee.
Go to Archive.org and search for the Revised Version. Look at the half title page. It says it was the version set forth in 1611AD. This is a lie. But we all know today that all Modern Bibles are based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are shorter manuscripts than the manuscripts that underly the King James Bible (Textus Receptus). Hort called the Textus Receptus villainous and vile. So the point here is that Westcott and Hort lied. Also, the Revised Version had a Unitarian on their committee. George Vance Smith. Westcott and Hort threatened to quit if he was removed from the team. Westcott and Hort held to heretical beliefs. If you were to look at them, you will see a denial of the Blood Atonement, a denial of the Substitutionary Atonement and more. Westcott was into the communion of the saints.

See this short video here:

This is a Paraphrase.
Do you want the paraphrased words of God or do you want the actual words of God?



Which Bible? How can you trust what the Bible says on such matters if it has errors in it?
In short, you or some scholar becomes the ultimate authority deciding what God said and did not say.
In the Garden, the serpent questioned Eve about the validity of God’s command.
This is what goes on in the world of Textual Criticism Or the Modern Bible movement. They question God’s words by saying that there are errors in His word today.

This is a lie. But we all know today that all Modern Bibles are based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are shorter manuscripts than the manuscripts that underly the King James Bible (Textus Receptus). Hort called the Textus Receptus villainous and vile. So the point here is that Westcott and Hort lied.

Wrong! Modern bibles are based on an extensive collection of source documents, not "the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus". Do your homework!

Here is part of the NIV translators' notes... (with my emphases)

In 1611, the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible sought to bring English readers back as close to that original fusion as possible. As with all translations, the transition from the original languages to Elizabethan English involved some loss of transparency to the original documents. And yet that small loss in transparency was more than made up for by a tremendous gain in comprehensibility: People could hear God’s Word in their own language! The result propelled the body of Christ into a new era of personal transformation and global reformation.

But, just like the original documents, the KJV was unable to escape the effects of time. The English language changed. The “thys” and “thous” and “whosoevers” of the KJV became less and less the language of everyday people and more and more the language of a bygone age. The KJV’s ability to present God’s Word the way it was written, while at the same time allowing readers to understand it the way it was meant, began to decline.

In the last century, a number of excellent new English Bible translations have emerged to occupy different points in the space vacated by the KJV.

Some translations place a particularly high priority on hearing God’s Word the way it was written — giving the modern English reader the opportunity to see much of the form and structure of the original documents. Ease of understanding varies from verse to verse and from book to book according to the complexity of the source material. But all verses and all books adhere to a high standard of transparency to the original languages.