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.
First, any changes between the KJV editions was due to printing errors, and the updating of grammar, spelling, etcetera. When the grammar and spelling was updated, and the printing technology was perfected with offset printing, this was no longer an issue. Primarily, two KJVs are used today among believers.
Second, it is not hypocritical for KJV Believers to say that Modern Bibles disagree with each other because Modern Bibles make substantive intentional changes and not updates in printing errors, and standardization in spelling, and grammar, etcetera. Theology is different between the Modern Bibles themselves. But overall, the Modern Bibles stand in stark contrast in doctrine when you compare the KJV vs. Modern Bibles.
Here is a short 16 minute preview of the Sword of God 2 (To help you to see what I am talking about).
It is a documentary quality video comparing the KJV vs. Modern Bibles.
The full video will be available to see on the "Truth is Christ" YouTube Channel sometime this summer.
May the Lord Jesus bless you (even if we disagree on this topic).
#1. The Benjamin Blayney KJV edition (1769) Oxford (Which today is really the 1893 or 1894 Oxford editions with the Apocrypha removed).
#2. The Pure Cambridge Edition (circa. 1900) (most likely by A.W. Pollard).
Second, it is not hypocritical for KJV Believers to say that Modern Bibles disagree with each other because Modern Bibles make substantive intentional changes and not updates in printing errors, and standardization in spelling, and grammar, etcetera. Theology is different between the Modern Bibles themselves. But overall, the Modern Bibles stand in stark contrast in doctrine when you compare the KJV vs. Modern Bibles.
Here is a short 16 minute preview of the Sword of God 2 (To help you to see what I am talking about).
It is a documentary quality video comparing the KJV vs. Modern Bibles.
The full video will be available to see on the "Truth is Christ" YouTube Channel sometime this summer.
May the Lord Jesus bless you (even if we disagree on this topic).
I agree. While I am not stating this as fact or anything, I believe one possibility is that God may have allowed the Apocrypha to be in the 1611 KJV as a witnessing tool. What better way to reach Catholics than to be familiar with their own books and point out their inconsistencies with real Scriptures? In either case, the King James Bible does not include it (like in the past). Granted, a person can get a KJV with the Apocrypha, but that is not how it normally sold or provided today online. This is why I believe God purified His Word seven times (Psalms 12:6) with the seven MAJOR KJV editions (with it being settled with the Pure Cambridge).
Cyprian quotes the Comma, and various sources in history state that the Arians corrupted 1 John 5:7 and other places in Scripture that affirm the deity of Jesus Christ. Westcott and Hort took the last sentence in 1 John 5:6 and moved it to fill the empty spot for 1 John 5:7 for their Revised Version. This is deception. Later Modern Bibles employ this deception but differently. They slightly change words in the KJV that say, "And there are three that bear witness" to "For there are three that testify" in 1 John 5:8, and they move it to fill in the empty spot where 1 John 5:7 should go. A water-down of the deity of Christ is nothing new, and we see that in Modern Bibles in a good number of places. George Vance Smith was on the Committee of the Revision Version headed by Westcott and Hort. Smith was a Unitarian who later celebrated in one of his works about how changing 1 Timothy 3:16.
George Vance Smith stated in one of his books:
Anyway, getting back to the Comma: When the Arians took power, only three countries were free from Arian influence. Italy, Spain, and Northern Africa. This is why the Latin manuscripts have the Comma. The Arians did not collect those Bibles in those regions and destroy them and then create corrupted copies in that region. North Africa has an AMAZING story involving the Comma. 460 Bishops testified to the Comma before the Arians in North Africa. The Arians in this region had 1 John 5:7 in their Bible. I would recommend watching these two videos here:
Also, one of the top Greek Grammarians in the world who lives in Greece, and his native tongue is Greek, and he is an expert on the ancient languages of Greek says there is a grammar error in the text if 1 John 5:7 is not there, as well.
George Vance Smith stated in one of his books:
“The old reading [“God” in 1 Tim. 3:16] is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament. ... It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of THE GROWING TENDENCY IN EARLY CHRISTIAN TIMES ... TO LOOK UPON THE HUMBLE TEACHER AS THE INCARNATE WORD, AND THEREFORE AS ‘GOD MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH’” (G. Vance Smith, Texts and Margins, p. 39).
Anyway, getting back to the Comma: When the Arians took power, only three countries were free from Arian influence. Italy, Spain, and Northern Africa. This is why the Latin manuscripts have the Comma. The Arians did not collect those Bibles in those regions and destroy them and then create corrupted copies in that region. North Africa has an AMAZING story involving the Comma. 460 Bishops testified to the Comma before the Arians in North Africa. The Arians in this region had 1 John 5:7 in their Bible. I would recommend watching these two videos here:
Also, one of the top Greek Grammarians in the world who lives in Greece, and his native tongue is Greek, and he is an expert on the ancient languages of Greek says there is a grammar error in the text if 1 John 5:7 is not there, as well.
The (alleged) excellence of a translation has nothing to do with the shortcomings of other translations. This is a fallacy I see repeated often by KJV-only advocates.
Are there bad translations out there? Undoubtedly. Does their existence make the KJV a better translation? Absolutely not.
Are there bad translations out there? Undoubtedly. Does their existence make the KJV a better translation? Absolutely not.
-
1
- Show all
All Modern Bibles have major doctrinal problems and sometimes get their facts wrong in Biblical history. However, this is not the case for the KJV. If this is the case (Which I believe it is because the evidence is overwhelming), we cannot trust the scholars of the Modern Bible Movement or Modern Bibles.
In other words, we cannot bury our head in the sand to such truths. Granted, KJV believers are generally looked down upon as either unintelligent and or they are falsely labeled as Ruckmanite, or Riplingerite. My point here is that there are many GOOD evidences to believe in a perfect Word of God for today and these reasons start with the Bible. There is no good biblical support for believing in Modern Textual Criticism or the Modern Bible Movement. The more I investigate this issue or topic, the more I find evidence in support of believing in a perfect Word of God for today and problems in the Modern Bible Movement.
In other words, we cannot bury our head in the sand to such truths. Granted, KJV believers are generally looked down upon as either unintelligent and or they are falsely labeled as Ruckmanite, or Riplingerite. My point here is that there are many GOOD evidences to believe in a perfect Word of God for today and these reasons start with the Bible. There is no good biblical support for believing in Modern Textual Criticism or the Modern Bible Movement. The more I investigate this issue or topic, the more I find evidence in support of believing in a perfect Word of God for today and problems in the Modern Bible Movement.
Look. There are no blatant and bad doctrinal problems in the KJV, unlike the Modern Bibles. There are no rank heretics attached to the KJV, unlike with Modern Bibles. You got Catholics, Unitarians, liberals, and more attached to the Modern Bible Movement. Your view also has to believe that those Christians martyred by the Catholic Church had a less perfect Bible. Yet, the Catholic Church who killed them were the ones who had the more precise words of God in their Vatican library (Vaticanus). Your position makes no sense and one must turn off all spiritual discernment in order to make it work. Please explain to me why the things I mentioned are not a problem for you.
Oh, and do not get me started on the whole Westcott and Hort deceptions.
How do you explain this? Is God really going to operate with rank heretics who deceive?
It makes no sense.
Oh, and do not get me started on the whole Westcott and Hort deceptions.
How do you explain this? Is God really going to operate with rank heretics who deceive?
It makes no sense.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Not at all. There are confessions of faith that support the KJB as the inspired words of God through history long before Ruckman and Riplinger. There were also the 1611 KJV loyalists who burned down the warehouses that were putting forth KJV updates (fixing printing errors, and updating the spelling, grammar, etc.), as well.
Here is just a small sampling:
1678: The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed" In 1678. It says, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day." They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life." Note: Logically, the Bible in England at this time involving Baptists would have been the King James Bible. (Source).
1762: A group of “1611 Loyalists” burns the Cambridge Warehouse down in protest the update of the KJV by Paris, destroying all but several copies. (Source)
1769: The KJV update by Blayney: A group of “1611 Loyalists” burns the Oxford Warehouse down in protest, destroying all but several copies. (Source)
1817: The Tennessee Association of Baptists established the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible as its standard in their 1817 meeting.
"We believe that any person, either in a public or private capacity who would adhere to, or propagate any alteration of the New Testament contrary to that already translated by order of King James the 1st, that is now in common use, ought not be encouraged but agreeable to the Apostles words to mark such and have no fellowship with them; and for the authority of our belief we refer to the following scriptures, viz: Deuteronomy 4th Chapter and 2 verse, Chapter 12 and 32 Chapter 28 and verse 14, Joshua 1 and 7, Proverbs 30 and 6, Rev. 22 and 18, 19, 2 John 10 verse."
1830: Taken from the Association of Baptists 25th meeting 1830
We the church of Jesus Christ being regularly baptised upon the profession of our faith in Christ are convinced the concessive of associate churches. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS AS TRANSLATED BY THE AUTHORITY OF KING JAMES TO BE THE WORDS OF GOD AND IS THE ONLY TRUE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.
1857: "The general excellence of the English Version being admitted, ITS PERFECTION ASSUMED, AND THEREFORE ALL PRECEDING AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS MUST BE UNWORTHY OF NOTICE; nay, even the original text need not be consulted... (Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, The English Bible, and Our Duty with Regard to It, 1857; 1871).
1868: The General Conference of Freewill Baptists stated, "we hold the sacred Scriptures in veneration, as set forth in King James's version."
1882: Author William W. Simkins wrote, "I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire [KJV] Bible in the English language. And I also say, that NO VERSION SINCE, BROUGHT OUT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, HAS THE DIVINE...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict...?...He would not....I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED TRANSLATION" (The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, W.W. Simkins, pp. 41,42)
1884: Excerpts from the Presbyterian Encyclopedia - under the section of English Bible - W. Adams D.D.
"Nothing which diligence, circumspection, scholarship, love of truth, and prayer, could avail was wanting to perfect this version of the Word of God. It is what it professes to be, a translation not a paraphrase; each word and expression corresponding to the original. What has, by some, been deemed a defect, is in fact a great excellence in our translation; it preserves, as far as possible, the very idiom of the original, the peculiarities of Oriental diction; thus proving that the men who made it understood what was the best style of translation - that which a transparent glass is not seen itself but shows every thing which is beyond it."
"But so it happened, in the kind providence of God, that the received version was made just in that auspicious moment of peace mind and union among Protestants, which has secured its adoption by all as the common standard. None have charged it with partiality, as favoring this or that sect, for the good reason that these sects and partialities did not then exist."
1890: The Supreme Court said, "the practice of reading THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, COMMONLY AND ONLY RECEIVED AS INSPIRED AND TRUE by the Protestant religious sects." (Decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Relating to the Reading of the Bible in Public Schools, 1890).
1896: The Washington District Regular Primitive Baptist Association changed their Abstract of Principles to say "We believe that the King James Translation (out of the original tongues) is the Scripture of truth and the only rule of faith and practice."
1897: "A hundred years ago the Authorized Version, which had been in our fathers hands for nearly two hundred years, was no longer a version. It had come to have all the significance of an original book. Outside the pulpit and the university no one dreamed that it was translated from another language...When our fathers, and they did, stoutly maintained the doctrine of verbal inspiration, the inspired words they really had in mind were not Hebrew or Greek, but English words; the words of that version which Selden called the best translation in the world, and of which the late Master of Balliol once remarked...IN A CERTAIN SENSE, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS MORE INSPIRED THAN THE ORIGINAL...(Minutes of the Annual Meeting, General Association of the Congregational Churches of Massachusetts, 1897.).
1905: Mates Creek District Association of Old Regular Baptists by 1905, and perhaps earlier, had an Abstract of Principles that claimed that "the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament, as translated under the reign of King James, are a revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Ghost."
1935: The Christian Unity Baptist Association said, "We believe in using only the King James version of the Bible."
Here is just a small sampling:
1678: The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed" In 1678. It says, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day." They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life." Note: Logically, the Bible in England at this time involving Baptists would have been the King James Bible. (Source).
1762: A group of “1611 Loyalists” burns the Cambridge Warehouse down in protest the update of the KJV by Paris, destroying all but several copies. (Source)
1769: The KJV update by Blayney: A group of “1611 Loyalists” burns the Oxford Warehouse down in protest, destroying all but several copies. (Source)
1817: The Tennessee Association of Baptists established the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible as its standard in their 1817 meeting.
"We believe that any person, either in a public or private capacity who would adhere to, or propagate any alteration of the New Testament contrary to that already translated by order of King James the 1st, that is now in common use, ought not be encouraged but agreeable to the Apostles words to mark such and have no fellowship with them; and for the authority of our belief we refer to the following scriptures, viz: Deuteronomy 4th Chapter and 2 verse, Chapter 12 and 32 Chapter 28 and verse 14, Joshua 1 and 7, Proverbs 30 and 6, Rev. 22 and 18, 19, 2 John 10 verse."
1830: Taken from the Association of Baptists 25th meeting 1830
We the church of Jesus Christ being regularly baptised upon the profession of our faith in Christ are convinced the concessive of associate churches. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS AS TRANSLATED BY THE AUTHORITY OF KING JAMES TO BE THE WORDS OF GOD AND IS THE ONLY TRUE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.
1857: "The general excellence of the English Version being admitted, ITS PERFECTION ASSUMED, AND THEREFORE ALL PRECEDING AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS MUST BE UNWORTHY OF NOTICE; nay, even the original text need not be consulted... (Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, The English Bible, and Our Duty with Regard to It, 1857; 1871).
1868: The General Conference of Freewill Baptists stated, "we hold the sacred Scriptures in veneration, as set forth in King James's version."
1882: Author William W. Simkins wrote, "I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire [KJV] Bible in the English language. And I also say, that NO VERSION SINCE, BROUGHT OUT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, HAS THE DIVINE...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict...?...He would not....I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED TRANSLATION" (The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, W.W. Simkins, pp. 41,42)
1884: Excerpts from the Presbyterian Encyclopedia - under the section of English Bible - W. Adams D.D.
"Nothing which diligence, circumspection, scholarship, love of truth, and prayer, could avail was wanting to perfect this version of the Word of God. It is what it professes to be, a translation not a paraphrase; each word and expression corresponding to the original. What has, by some, been deemed a defect, is in fact a great excellence in our translation; it preserves, as far as possible, the very idiom of the original, the peculiarities of Oriental diction; thus proving that the men who made it understood what was the best style of translation - that which a transparent glass is not seen itself but shows every thing which is beyond it."
"But so it happened, in the kind providence of God, that the received version was made just in that auspicious moment of peace mind and union among Protestants, which has secured its adoption by all as the common standard. None have charged it with partiality, as favoring this or that sect, for the good reason that these sects and partialities did not then exist."
1890: The Supreme Court said, "the practice of reading THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, COMMONLY AND ONLY RECEIVED AS INSPIRED AND TRUE by the Protestant religious sects." (Decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Relating to the Reading of the Bible in Public Schools, 1890).
1896: The Washington District Regular Primitive Baptist Association changed their Abstract of Principles to say "We believe that the King James Translation (out of the original tongues) is the Scripture of truth and the only rule of faith and practice."
1897: "A hundred years ago the Authorized Version, which had been in our fathers hands for nearly two hundred years, was no longer a version. It had come to have all the significance of an original book. Outside the pulpit and the university no one dreamed that it was translated from another language...When our fathers, and they did, stoutly maintained the doctrine of verbal inspiration, the inspired words they really had in mind were not Hebrew or Greek, but English words; the words of that version which Selden called the best translation in the world, and of which the late Master of Balliol once remarked...IN A CERTAIN SENSE, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS MORE INSPIRED THAN THE ORIGINAL...(Minutes of the Annual Meeting, General Association of the Congregational Churches of Massachusetts, 1897.).
1905: Mates Creek District Association of Old Regular Baptists by 1905, and perhaps earlier, had an Abstract of Principles that claimed that "the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament, as translated under the reign of King James, are a revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Ghost."
1935: The Christian Unity Baptist Association said, "We believe in using only the King James version of the Bible."
-
1
- Show all
I imagine some cults believe believe in the Trinity., but that does not invalidate the teaching of the Trinity as found in the Bible. I am also sure that Young Earth Creationism (that is true teaching taught in the Bible) is also agreed upon by even some cult-like groups. Meaning, guilt by association is not always true. Also, to say that one is a Ruckmanite because they believe the KJV is divinely inspired and perfect is false slander. Ruckman believed the KJV was an advanced revelation in that it communicated new information. Not all KJV believers believe this teaching from Ruckman. Not only that but Ruckman was a racist, foul-mouthed, mid-Acts dispensationalist, and he was involved in multiple divorces. So to be a true Ruckmanite, one has to agree with all the bad teachings and things that he said, and did. Otherwise, it is false slander and childish name-calling.
Also, the belief that the KJV is the perfect, inerrant words of God did not originate with the cults but with regular Bible-believing churches, as well. Contrarily, the Modern Bible Movement originated with two liberal heretics (Westcott and Hort).
In addition, many KJV-only churches are not cults.
Also, the belief that the KJV is the perfect, inerrant words of God did not originate with the cults but with regular Bible-believing churches, as well. Contrarily, the Modern Bible Movement originated with two liberal heretics (Westcott and Hort).
In addition, many KJV-only churches are not cults.
-
1
- Show all
Sometimes a smear campaign is used to discredit believing in a perfect Word as the Bible teaches. You do not accept the plain verses in Scripture that talk about a perfect or pure Word being preserved today (Psalms 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5, 1 Peter 1:23 cf. 1 Peter 2:2). There are even other verses that indirectly imply this idea, as well. For example: 1 Corinthians 1:10 says we are all to speak the same thing. But in the Modern Bible Movement, this is simply not possible. You cannot speak the same thing if Modern Bibles all say things differently between each other and Modern scholars do not even agree on what manuscripts are the right ones. Yes, there is a primacy of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and the Ben Asher text (for the Hebrew), but other manuscripts can alter future readings of the Bible. Meaning, you don't have a settled text, and that sits well with liberals or those looking to change God's Word.
@Dino246
Granted, I am not saying you are liberal, etc., but the point here is that the Modern Bible Movement is not only rooted in dark origins with Westcott and Hort, but it continues to attract flies (Catholics, Unitarians, Spiritists, etcetera).
For example: Westcott was into the communion of the saints. Meaning, that Westcott talked with spirits in a church late at night. Do I really want a person who has come in contact with dead spirits to translate the Bible for me? No.
I am beginning to see a pattern here that is a big problem.
Then there are the tactics of deception in the Modern Bible Movement with Westcott and Hort lying to us that the Revised Version was the version set forth in 1611. The moving of words from certain surrounding verses to fill in the blank spot in 1 John 5:7 to not alert the new reader there is a major verse missing that teaches the Trinity.. There is the New King James Bible deception. So you have to be able to ignore all this crazy stuff in order to claim your movement is of God and blessed by Him. Granted, I believe God can use Modern Bibles, but they do not represent His pure words.
Granted, I am not saying you are liberal, etc., but the point here is that the Modern Bible Movement is not only rooted in dark origins with Westcott and Hort, but it continues to attract flies (Catholics, Unitarians, Spiritists, etcetera).
For example: Westcott was into the communion of the saints. Meaning, that Westcott talked with spirits in a church late at night. Do I really want a person who has come in contact with dead spirits to translate the Bible for me? No.
#1. Westcott and Hort: They were engaged in the communion of the saints (or dead spirits). They created the Revised Version (i.e., the first Modern English Bible of the current Modern Bible Movement). Their NT Greek is based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
#2. J.B. Philips New Testament Translation (Not popular today), but it was at one time. He consulted the ghost of C.S. Lewis on his Bible translation. His NT Greek is based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
#3. Johannes Greber: He used to be a Catholic priest. He began healing sessions. He talked to various spirits that said there is no hell or no blood atonement. The spirits also told him to never ever trust the Received Text (i.e., the Textus Receptus). After he got kicked out of the priesthood in Germany, he came to the United States, and he did a New Testament translation of the Bible into English. It is still the BIble used by the spiritualist church to this day (May 4, 20024). Greber talks about how the spirits guided him in every word of his translation. In 1 John 4:2, it says trust the spirits. Not even Modern Bibles have this rendering. The Jehovah’s Witnesses had Greber’s Translation in front of them when they did their New Testament translation. John 1:1 rendering in the NWT came from Greber’s translation. His NT Greek is based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
#4. Virginia Mollenkott worked on the NIV as a consultant. She received a fundamentalist education (with fundamentalist credentials), and yet in her book called “Sensuous Spirituality” she states how she has been set free from the King James Bible. When she discovered this, she ended up divorcing her husband over new sexual identity and goes on teaching. She also claimed that God, angels, and a host of other spirits began to speak to her audibly when she made the claim to be set free from the King James Bible. The claim that she had been fired is false because Mellonkott herself claimed that she dared anyone to bring forth the proof she was fired. The NIV uses the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for the NT Greek.
#5. Brian Simmons' Passion Translation: Brian Simmons claims to have consulted an angel in creating his Bible Translation. Simmons translation is popular with the Charismatic crowd like Bill Johnson (who is into grave sucking, and claims a miracle of gold dust came in his church). Simmons Translation is based upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for his NT Greek.
I am beginning to see a pattern here that is a big problem.
Then there are the tactics of deception in the Modern Bible Movement with Westcott and Hort lying to us that the Revised Version was the version set forth in 1611. The moving of words from certain surrounding verses to fill in the blank spot in 1 John 5:7 to not alert the new reader there is a major verse missing that teaches the Trinity.. There is the New King James Bible deception. So you have to be able to ignore all this crazy stuff in order to claim your movement is of God and blessed by Him. Granted, I believe God can use Modern Bibles, but they do not represent His pure words.
-
1
- Show all
The KJV is not only more reliable but it also IS the Bible (or God's Holy Word) for today.
Again, why would I say this? Because we can see that the hand of God was upon the KJV, unlike the Modern Bibles.
I hope this helps, and may God bless you.
Again, why would I say this? Because we can see that the hand of God was upon the KJV, unlike the Modern Bibles.
- Two Textus Receptus translators were martyred (Tyndale, & Rogers).
- King James helped to temporarily unite two Christian groups that were in opposition to each other with the KJV (Puritans and Anglicans).
- The largest assembly of the best translators in the world was gathered together. This assembly was unlike any other before them or after.
- KJB and its translators were almost destroyed by a super bomb (a.k.a. the Gunpowder Plot).
- KJB was prophetically chosen in a language that is the world language of today (Note: Granted, while 1600s English is not the world language of today, it is still English and a part of Modern English we have today).
- The three great revivals were a result of the KJV (Compare that to the fruit of the Modern Bibles in this Laodicean age).
- KJB is the most printed book in the world and is the standard English text among believers (Being known for hundreds of years as THE Bible).
- The KJV is a Reformation or Protestant text. England spread out to the world and helped to form Protestant Christianity in English-speaking countries and beyond.
- KJB was used to help end slavery (Frederick Douglas).
- Christians were united over one text (i.e., His Word does not return void). They not only were united by one text, but they also believed that the KJV is the inerrant, and perfect words of God throughout history.
- Everyone today in English-speaking countries still speaks like the King James Bible (Example: Drop in the bucket, the writing is on the wall, the apple of my eye, etcetera).
- The KJV was predicted to be obsolete and replaced by certain Modern Bibles in the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s (But this did not happen). In other words, the KJV has endured the test of time and against much opposition.
I hope this helps, and may God bless you.
-
1
- Show all
What do you make of all the problems in the Modern Bible Movement I have mentioned so far? Spiritism, Catholicism, Unitarianism, and deception is attached to this movement. Granted, I am not saying a person cannot be saved by a Modern Bible, or that they cannot use Modern Translations. My point is that the KJV has shown to be one of most trustworthy translations today and yet on the other hand, Modern Bibles have many problems. Modern Bibles teach false doctrines in many places, unlike the KJV.
-
1
-
1
- Show all