Do you believe that the first popular translation into any language from the Received Text is a perfect God-preserved translation of the Received Text ? If not, why would God only protect the English speaking people of the world and give them alone access to an uncorrupted translation ?
Apologetics: witnessing to atheists
- Thread starter GWH
- 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.
Do you believe that the first popular translation into any language from the Received Text is a perfect God-preserved translation of the Received Text ? If not, why would God only protect the English speaking people of the world and give them alone access to an uncorrupted translation ?
If you were to travel back in time to the late 1600s through the early to mid-1900s, it would be your view that stood out as unorthodox. Throughout the English-speaking world, believers overwhelmingly received the King James Bible as the perfect and authoritative words of God in English, trusted and used without hesitation. The idea that the Bible is riddled with errors and must be continually corrected by scholars is not historic Christianity, but a distinctly modern innovation.
If you do not believe this, the historical record is clear. I can provide quotations from believers across past centuries affirming the King James Bible as the perfect and authoritative words of God in English, although the vast majority of these quotations come from the 1800s.
So by your reasoning, if you were to time travel back to the late 1600s through the early to mid-1900s, the overwhelming majority of believers throughout history in English-speaking countries who received the King James Bible as the perfect and authoritative word of God in English would also have to be labeled cultists and bibliolaters. That accusation collapses under its own weight. It places historic Christianity itself under condemnation and recasts faithful believers of past centuries as idolaters simply because they trusted God’s words.
You called us cultists and accused us of bibliolatry, as though trusting God’s preserved words were the same as worshiping an idol. We do not bow down to a book as though it were God, and we have no cult leader. Those accusations are false. Advocates of the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible represent a wide range of theological backgrounds and positions, united only by the shared conviction that God preserved His words and that the King James Bible faithfully reflects them.
The brethren you have maligned believe the plain teaching of Scripture in Psalms 12:6–7, received simply and humbly, as a child would. The words of the LORD are declared to be pure, and the promise that follows speaks of God’s faithfulness to preserve what He has spoken. This is not a strained interpretation. It is the natural reading of the text.
Modern Bibles alter Psalms 12:7 so that the promise is redirected away from God’s words and made to refer to the people instead. That shift is yet another attack on the communicated Word of God in Scripture. It conveniently removes one of the clearest affirmations of the preservation of God’s words, replacing it with an interpretation that better fits the modern assumption that no Bible today can be fully trusted. How fitting that yet another verse is adjusted to accommodate a belief system that denies what Scripture plainly teaches.
…..
By that line of reasoning, why didn’t the rest of the world all have a perfect copy of the Hebrew Scriptures during the time when Israel was under the Mosaic covenant?
…..
Do you even realize that the Modern Bible Movement is rooted in multiple deceptions and mingled with Unitarians during its early beginnings?
If you need documentation, I can provide it as proof.
Again, you are on the wrong side of history.
Before the popularity of the NIV in the 1980s, your movement really was not all that influential.
In the 1950s and before, generally liberals only used Modern Bibles. So if you lived during that time and before, you would be called a liberal by the vast majority of Christianity in the English-speaking world. But seeing we are in the last days, unbelief in God’s words is increasingly growing. So not only are you not aware of what the Bible says on this matter, but you are uninformed on basic Bible history.
In other words, I would encourage you to do your homework on this matter, and you will see that I am right.
If not, you can take the blue pill and believe whatever you want to believe.
…..
B
Blue155
Guest
I’ve noticed that. Some believe what was being preserved in that day was the people, and not God’s word.
Of course believers who only had the KJV viewed it as the authoritative words of God in English, but that does not mean later translations were not viewed the same way--which is my case, having loved six versions.
A Bible containing one error would be imperfect, but that does not mean it is therefore not sufficiently true and authoritative for teaching GRFS. IOW, your theory of illumination is similar to mine, but mine does not require verbal dictation--only sufficient tweaking. What I say regarding MFW also applies to inspiration: God merely tweaks the river of history occasionally to keep if flowing in the direction He intends but allows the fish to swim as they wish.
Again, viewing any version as inerrant is akin to viewing oneself as infallible. That just won't fly and is the root belief of cults from papalists to Mormons, so I encourage you to have humility and be content with sufficient confidence rather than demand absolute certainty. Just because you assume the KJV is perfect does not make it so.
I have confidence because of belief in the Propensity Principle,
and you have confidence because of belief in the KJV,
but neither of our beliefs make 2Cor. 5:7 untrue.
We cannot escape the necessity of voting for/betting on what we choose to believe
and waiting until we are resurrected to attain certainty about which beliefs were best.
While Israel was under the Mosaic Law, the world had access to The Hebrew scriptures. During the New Covenant, the whole world, including us, has had access to the original reliable Received Koine Greek revelation of New Testament. Do you believe that the Septuagint, the LXX, was a perfect translation of the Hebrew Old Testament?
Here is a writeup I created today that identifies a pattern of the Communicated Word of God being attacked.
Introduction:
Modern Bible Movement has produced translations that reflect its own underlying beliefs about Scripture. Modern Bible believers commonly claim that God has preserved doctrines, messages, or ideas, while denying that He has preserved His actual words. As a result, they hold that no Bible, whether in English or in the original languages, is perfect or without error. It should not be surprising, then, that Modern Bibles consistently alter, weaken, or redirect verses that speak most clearly about the authority, certainty, purity, and preservation of God’s words.
Below is a list of verses I compiled that show a pattern of how the Communicated Word of God, or its defining characteristics, is subtly attacked in Modern Bibles, which suits the belief system of the Modern Bible believer.
An Attack Against the Communicated Word of God:
- Psalms 96:13
KJV: “with his truth”
NIV: “with his faithfulness”
The NIV waters down God’s truth, which is His Word, by replacing it with God’s faithfulness. - Psalms 12:6
KJV: “The words of the LORD are pure words”
NLT: “The LORD’s promises are pure”
The NLT replaces God’s words with promises, narrowing purity to selected statements rather than all His words. - Psalms 12:7
KJV: “Thou shalt keep them… preserve them”
NIV: “keep the needy safe”
The NIV replaces God’s preserved words with people, removing a clear promise of verbal preservation. - Psalms 138:2
KJV: “magnified thy word above all thy name”
NIV: “you have so exalted your solemn decree that it surpasses your fame.”
First, the NIV replaces word, obscuring the exaltation of both Jesus Christ, the Living Word, and Scripture, the written Word.
Second, the NIV removes the absolute standard above all thy name and replaces it with a comparative idea of surpassing God’s fame, weakening the supremacy of God’s Word. - Psalms 119:140
KJV: “Thy word is very pure”
NIV: “Your promises have been thoroughly tested”
First, the NIV replaces God’s word with promises, shifting the focus away from the entirety of God’s spoken and written words to selected statements or assurances.
Second, the NIV changes how God’s words are described, moving from being very pure by nature to merely being tested or tried. While the KJV elsewhere affirms that God’s words have been tried and proven, this verse specifically teaches the inherent purity of God’s Word. By replacing purity with testing, the NIV weakens what this verse is actually teaching about the nature of God’s words........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ - 2 Corinthians 2:17
KJV: “which corrupt the word of God”
NIV: “do not peddle the word of God”
The NIV replaces corruption of God’s words with the idea of inappropriately trying to sell His words to others. Is this an attempt to avoid or distract away from the very Scriptures they possess are corrupted? After all, they do claim that there are errors (corruptions) in all bibles, regardless if it is Hebrew, Greek, or English. - Romans 10:17
KJV: “by the word of God” / “of God”
NIV: “hearing the message” / “about Christ” First, the NIV replaces God’s word with a message. Second, the NIV replaces God with Christ, suggesting faith comes only from hearing Christ’s spoken words rather than from all Scripture. - 1 Peter 1:23
KJV: “by the word of God… incorruptible”
NIV: omits the word “incorruptible”
The NIV removes the incorruptible nature of God’s Word. - 1 Peter 2:2
KJV: “the sincere milk of the word”
NIV: “pure spiritual milk [ omitted ]”
The NIV removes “the word,” disconnecting spiritual growth from Scripture. - Proverbs 22:21
KJV: “the certainty of the words of truth”
NIV: omits “certainty”
The NIV removes the fact that we can have certainty of the words of truth, that is, God’s words.
[Continued]
....
#11. Isaiah 28:10
KJV: “precept upon precept… line upon line”
NIV: omits “line upon line”
The removal of “line upon line” strips away the idea of precision, obscuring that even the very lines of Scripture are purposeful and profitable for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). This same mindset is then applied in the Modern Bible movement, where entire lines of Scripture are treated as removable or optional, as seen in passages like the woman taken in adultery and the longer ending of Mark.
#12. John 5:39
KJV: “Search the scriptures”
NIV: “You study the Scriptures”
John 5:39 is a key doctrinal verse that modern scholars have altered in modern Bibles. This change happens to align with Christians who criticize us for being overly focused on the Word of God, as if to suggest we are like the Pharisees or Jews with this particular problem. In the KJV, Jesus commands, “Search the scriptures” (present tense imperative), urging a continual and active engagement with God’s Word. In the middle part of the verse, “for in them ye think ye have eternal life,” although written in the present tense, it reflects not only a current belief but also a belief the Jews have held for some time. Modern translations change the beginning of the verse to an indicative mood, rendering it as “You search the Scriptures,” as though Jesus is merely acknowledging what the Jews were already doing, with no exhortation to continue in the Word, which also leaves open the door for a reader to conclude that Jesus may have been rebuking them for searching the Scriptures rather than commanding them to do so. This change downplays the command to actively search the Scriptures and shifts the focus to past actions alone, bolstering the modern believer’s argument that we take Scripture too seriously.
#13. Acts 2:41
KJV: “gladly received his word”
NIV: “[ omitted ] accepted his message”
The NIV omits “gladly” and replaces “word” with “message.”
#14. Isaiah 45:23
KJV: “the word is gone out of my mouth”
NIV: “I have sworn by myself”
The NIV removes emphasis on God’s spoken word.
#15. 1 Corinthians 2:4
KJV: “preaching… not with enticing words of man’s wisdom”
NIV: “preaching… not with wise and persuasive words”
The KJV explicitly condemns preaching and speaking enticing words of man’s wisdom, placing human reasoning in direct opposition to communication demonstrated by the Spirit and power of God. The NIV softens this rebuke by rendering the phrase as “wise and persuasive words,” which removes the negative judgment against man’s wisdom. In context, Paul is addressing how God’s Word is communicated, contrasting Spirit empowered speech with human intellect. Modern scholarship would naturally take offense at the KJV wording, since textual criticism is grounded in academic reasoning and human wisdom rather than words demonstrated by the Spirit and power of God. This change shields man’s wisdom from rebuke and weakens the contrast Paul draws between divine power and human reasoning.
#16. Psalms 68:11
KJV: “The LORD gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.”
NIV: “The Lord announces the word, and the women who proclaim it are a mighty throng.”
The KJV presents God as giving His Word, followed by great was the company of those that published it, keeping the focus on the Word itself and its broad publication. This wording also teaches the consistency of how Scripture has been preserved and transmitted by men of God throughout history. The term “great” does not necessarily refer to the greatness of their theology, but can just as naturally refer to the greatness of their scholarship, learning, and ability. In this sense, the verse can apply not only to the original Scriptures being copied and spread, but also to later faithful transmission, including the work of the King James translators, who possessed extraordinary linguistic skill and learning and made the widespread publication of that translation possible.
The NIV shifts the emphasis by specifying the women who proclaim it are a mighty throng, introducing an unnecessary gender distinction and redirecting attention away from the continuity of Scripture’s preservation and publication. This alteration obscures the historical reality that God has used highly trained scholars to preserve and publish His Word. It is no surprise that the Modern Bible Movement would rather not draw attention to figures like Lancelot Andrewes, who mastered numerous languages and exemplified the very scholarly excellence reflected in the KJV rendering.
#17. 2 Timothy 3:16
KJV: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
NIV: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”
The Greek word that underlies “profitable” conveys real gain, not mere usefulness. In the Greek, "reproof” refers to exposing error, while “rebuking” emphasizes confrontation. In the Greek, "correction” properly follows reproof by setting something straight. In the Greek, “Instruction" within "instruction in righteousness” reflects authoritative moral discipline, whereas “training” in modern English often suggests skill development rather than submission to a moral standard.
A biblical framework preserved in the KJV is:
Doctrine – what is true
Reproof – what is wrong
Correction – how to get right again
Instruction in righteousness – how to stay right
However, the modern Bible weaken or water-down the Scripture's profitability, ability to expose error, and its intense discipline to submitting to a moral standard.
....
KJV: “precept upon precept… line upon line”
NIV: omits “line upon line”
The removal of “line upon line” strips away the idea of precision, obscuring that even the very lines of Scripture are purposeful and profitable for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). This same mindset is then applied in the Modern Bible movement, where entire lines of Scripture are treated as removable or optional, as seen in passages like the woman taken in adultery and the longer ending of Mark.
#12. John 5:39
KJV: “Search the scriptures”
NIV: “You study the Scriptures”
John 5:39 is a key doctrinal verse that modern scholars have altered in modern Bibles. This change happens to align with Christians who criticize us for being overly focused on the Word of God, as if to suggest we are like the Pharisees or Jews with this particular problem. In the KJV, Jesus commands, “Search the scriptures” (present tense imperative), urging a continual and active engagement with God’s Word. In the middle part of the verse, “for in them ye think ye have eternal life,” although written in the present tense, it reflects not only a current belief but also a belief the Jews have held for some time. Modern translations change the beginning of the verse to an indicative mood, rendering it as “You search the Scriptures,” as though Jesus is merely acknowledging what the Jews were already doing, with no exhortation to continue in the Word, which also leaves open the door for a reader to conclude that Jesus may have been rebuking them for searching the Scriptures rather than commanding them to do so. This change downplays the command to actively search the Scriptures and shifts the focus to past actions alone, bolstering the modern believer’s argument that we take Scripture too seriously.
#13. Acts 2:41
KJV: “gladly received his word”
NIV: “[ omitted ] accepted his message”
The NIV omits “gladly” and replaces “word” with “message.”
#14. Isaiah 45:23
KJV: “the word is gone out of my mouth”
NIV: “I have sworn by myself”
The NIV removes emphasis on God’s spoken word.
#15. 1 Corinthians 2:4
KJV: “preaching… not with enticing words of man’s wisdom”
NIV: “preaching… not with wise and persuasive words”
The KJV explicitly condemns preaching and speaking enticing words of man’s wisdom, placing human reasoning in direct opposition to communication demonstrated by the Spirit and power of God. The NIV softens this rebuke by rendering the phrase as “wise and persuasive words,” which removes the negative judgment against man’s wisdom. In context, Paul is addressing how God’s Word is communicated, contrasting Spirit empowered speech with human intellect. Modern scholarship would naturally take offense at the KJV wording, since textual criticism is grounded in academic reasoning and human wisdom rather than words demonstrated by the Spirit and power of God. This change shields man’s wisdom from rebuke and weakens the contrast Paul draws between divine power and human reasoning.
#16. Psalms 68:11
KJV: “The LORD gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.”
NIV: “The Lord announces the word, and the women who proclaim it are a mighty throng.”
The KJV presents God as giving His Word, followed by great was the company of those that published it, keeping the focus on the Word itself and its broad publication. This wording also teaches the consistency of how Scripture has been preserved and transmitted by men of God throughout history. The term “great” does not necessarily refer to the greatness of their theology, but can just as naturally refer to the greatness of their scholarship, learning, and ability. In this sense, the verse can apply not only to the original Scriptures being copied and spread, but also to later faithful transmission, including the work of the King James translators, who possessed extraordinary linguistic skill and learning and made the widespread publication of that translation possible.
The NIV shifts the emphasis by specifying the women who proclaim it are a mighty throng, introducing an unnecessary gender distinction and redirecting attention away from the continuity of Scripture’s preservation and publication. This alteration obscures the historical reality that God has used highly trained scholars to preserve and publish His Word. It is no surprise that the Modern Bible Movement would rather not draw attention to figures like Lancelot Andrewes, who mastered numerous languages and exemplified the very scholarly excellence reflected in the KJV rendering.
#17. 2 Timothy 3:16
KJV: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
NIV: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”
The Greek word that underlies “profitable” conveys real gain, not mere usefulness. In the Greek, "reproof” refers to exposing error, while “rebuking” emphasizes confrontation. In the Greek, "correction” properly follows reproof by setting something straight. In the Greek, “Instruction" within "instruction in righteousness” reflects authoritative moral discipline, whereas “training” in modern English often suggests skill development rather than submission to a moral standard.
A biblical framework preserved in the KJV is:
Doctrine – what is true
Reproof – what is wrong
Correction – how to get right again
Instruction in righteousness – how to stay right
However, the modern Bible weaken or water-down the Scripture's profitability, ability to expose error, and its intense discipline to submitting to a moral standard.
....
I never heard any claims as such.
However, believers all over the world in different countries that do not speak English as their native tongue claim it is the KJV that's the Word of God (i.e., its perfect and or without error).
You said:
English is a second language in many countries, and in many countries, you can see English signs, etcetera.
It is after all the world language.
Anyway, I see the KJV as a unique form of the Textus Receptus.
The Beza 1598 Greek edition primarily underlies the KJV, except for appx. 25 translatable differences (That I catalogued).
I believe the PCE (Pure Cambridge Edition of the KJB) is the final settled form of the King James Bible.
But I believe is vitally important to also look up the underlying Hebrew and Greek words as much as we can, as well.
There is a certain group of KJV believers out there who have a strong resistance to the original languages (Which needs to change).
....
Well, I believe there was some minor spreading of the Hebrew manuscripts in the OT but I do not believe it was on a massive scale or anything where the whole world had it. The Jews were supposed to be a light unto the Gentiles but they failed in that mission. It was not until Jesus Christ who made that mission a success.
As for the LXX: There is no such thing as an LXX singular. There are several editions of them. So to say that there is an LXX (singular) is deceptive. Even some Modern Bibles admit there are LXX's. So which one do you go with? Most likely these LXX's were just an attempt to preserve the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek because it was the world language at the time of the early church. I do not see the LXXs as being before Christ. That is a narrative pushed by the Modernists. I prefer the Hebrew that underlies the KJV, which is the Ben Chayyim Masoretic. I am not a Multi-Versionist or a Pick and Choose Your Own Adventure Bible Reading, type believer. I believe in the Received Text tradition that is settled and stable. Why because you wouldn't fly in a plane that was built on conflicting schematics. You would not buy a house that had multiple contradictory contracts.
Side Note: Jesus also spoke of jots and tittles, which are marks that make up the Hebrew letters. So the idea of some kind of Greek LXXs existing during Christ's ministry is highly unlikely. Some have even stated that Jesus quoted from the LXX: However, Jesus called the Gentiles as dogs during his ministry. He said salvation was of the Jews. So Jesus was very Jewish and not a Greek. So I don't believe He would have quoted from any of the LXXs. That wouldn't make any sense. Also, the miraculous story of one of the LXXs is pretty far out there. Besides, we already have a Bible that has influenced many through history causing three of the greatest revivals. What did these LXX's accomplish?
....
1. Psalms 96:13. Young's Analytical Concordance says the word translated as truth (KJV) or faithfulness (NIV)
is emunah, meaning steadfastness.
2. Psalms 12:6. Young's says the word translated as words (KJV) or promises (NIV) is imrah, meaning sayings or speech.
3. Psalms 12:7. Young's does not include them, but apparently the needy reflects v. 5.
4. Psalms 138:2. Young's says the word translated as word (KJV) or decree (NIV) is imrah.
5. Psalm 119:140. Young's says the word translated as word (KJV) or promises (NIV) is imrah.
I agree that per Young imrah seems to include all of GW, so narrowing that meaning to specify a subcategory
(promises, decrees) seems problematic.
However, in a couple of cases (#1 & 3), could we not be striving about words (logomacheo, 1Tim. 6:4, 2Tim. 2:14)?
6. 2Cor. 2:17. Young's says the word translated as corrupt (KJV) or peddle (NIV) is kapeleuo, meaning to act as a vintner (wine merchant).
7. Romans 10:17. Young's says the words translated as word of God (KJV) or message about Christ (NIV) are rhema theos, meaning word of God. The NIV may have been influenced by the reference in v. 15 to good news and by Col. 3:16, but I agree that this thinking should have been put in a footnote rather than changing the text from theos to Christos.
8. 1Pet. 1:23. Young's says the word translated as incorruptible (KJV) or as perishable (NIV) is aphthartos, meaning incorruptible.
9. 1Pet. 2:2. Young's says the word translated as sincere milk of the word (KJV) or as spiritual milk (NIV) is gala logikos, meaning logical or verbal milk.
10. Pro. 22:21. Young's does not list this verse under certain/certainty.
The NIV seems correct for #6 and not correct for #7. Both seem correct for #8, but the NIV was incorrect to omit logikos in #9.
As I stated or inferred earlier, I'm sure you know the arguments against your beliefs just as you know your arguments for them.
With respect, my initial comment to you was simply how I observed one post of yours basically in isolation. It was meant to be both critical and constructive.
Beyond this, as I think I also said, I've little to no interest in arguments for or against the KJV. I've seen you reference AI in a few places. It's very easy today to pose a few queries and get a tremendous amount of feedback from online sources to read most sides of the arguments on such issues as this.
If I can put it this way, I'm against arguments for the KJV, and for that matter, against arguments for any English translation. I use the NKJ mainly for searches in English simply because I got used to it decades ago. But most anytime I'm looking at the Text, I have a few Greek versions on screen and Hebrew if in the OC Text.
With that said, I do appreciate some of the work the NET Bible has done in their thousands of notes in providing some transparency in their decisions re: manuscripts evidence.
Before getting into individual words or lexicons, the core problem with your approach here is that you are missing the bigger picture and failing to connect the dots in two critical ways.
First, you are not seeing the broader pattern that emerges when these changes are examined together as a whole. I have already pointed out to you in a previous discussion that there is a recognizable pattern in Modern Bibles that creates the impression that Jesus sinned. That conclusion does not come from a single verse taken in isolation, but from repeated, directional changes that form a clear theme when viewed collectively. What I am documenting here is another distinct and parallel pattern. Modern Bibles consistently water down, redirect, or weaken the communicated Word of God itself. Treating each verse as an isolated case allows you to explain away individual examples, but it prevents you from seeing the cumulative force of the evidence.
Second, and just as important, this pattern of changes perfectly aligns with the belief system of the Modern Bible believer, such as yourself. The Modern Bible Proponent believes that no Bible is word perfect or without error, and that God has preserved doctrines, promises, or general ideas rather than His actual words. That is the very belief your movement holds, and it is precisely the belief reflected and promoted by the translations you defend.
Just as Jehovah’s Witnesses produced a Bible translation tailored to support their denial of the deity of Christ, the Modern Bible Movement has produced translations that reflect its own underlying assumptions about Scripture. I am not saying that adherents of the Modern Bible Movement are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult that deny the true gospel and desperately need salvation. I do believe that many who use Modern Bible translations, and who do not falsely slander or malign those who hold to the King James Bible, are saved by the same gospel of Jesus Christ like I am. However, that does not negate the reality that the Modern Bible Movement introduces serious spiritual dangers. Its underlying view of Scripture can erode confidence in God’s words, foster ongoing doubt, and in some cases contribute to spiritual instability or even apostasy, as seen in figures such as Rick Beckman or Bart Ehrman.
At this point, the disagreement is no longer academic. It is foundational. I am examining the pattern, the direction, and the theological coherence of these changes. You are approaching each verse in isolation and defending the changes on technical grounds while ignoring their cumulative theological effect. Until that difference is acknowledged, you simply cannot see the forest for the trees. You appear to be trapped in a feedback loop, fixated solely on individual details while consistently ignoring the larger picture those details form when taken together.
I will address your specific lexical points directly in my next post.
Side Note:
Also, keep in mind that the Modern Bible Movement you follow has its origins rooted in deception and involved Unitarians in its early beginnings, whose theological assumptions directly shaped early revision work and continue to influence modern translations. Men such as George Vance Smith, Ezra Abbot, and Joseph Henry Thayer were Unitarians who denied the deity of Jesus Christ and rejected the idea of a verbally inspired and preserved Bible. Their theology directly influenced early revision work, textual decisions, and scholarly tools that are still relied upon today.
The beginning of the Revised Version says it is the version set forth in 1611, but we all know today that this is not the case. The deception continued when Westcott and Hort moved the last sentence of 1 John 5:6 and placed it into the missing spot where the Johannine Comma should go in 1 John 5:7. No footnote was made. As a result, the new reader would be deceived into thinking that this verse was never part of the Bible. They would not know that there is a verse that directly speaks about the Trinity. This is deception.
I spoke with a Critical Text advocate about this issue involving the Revised Version, and he admitted to me that this was a deception. In doing so, he is admitting that his own movement is rooted in deception. Why on earth is he still in it?
.....
Well, enjoy your Modern Bible Movement where its origins are rooted in deceptions and involved Unitarians in its early beginnings. Enjoy your never ending shape-shifter Nestle and Aland text that keeps shape shifting every decade or so. Enjoy the confusion you must have when the Bible that exists in your mind differs from the Bible that exists in the mind of the very same proponent who believes the same way you do. It's madness. No rational person would test fly a plane built upon conflicting schematics. No logical person would buy a house that involved contradictory contracts. Then why do so with a book that deals with your very soul? But go ahead. Go back to the confusion. Just know that God is not the author of confusion. He does not speak contradictory things and He does not demand us to have a "Pick and Choose Your Own Adventure Bible Reading" type of belief. Jesus spoke with authority when He quoted the Scriptures. There were no instances where He talked about textual variants with his disciples.
As for the NET Bible:
Dan Wallace cannot be taken seriously. He said the Revised Version had 2,000 manuscripts backing it up on the last 15 minutes of the Ankerberg Show. This is just completely false. Westcott and Hort were arguing for the Lucian Recension Theory which was to show that they were favoring primarily two manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
....
My concern has never been whether lexicons allow a range of meanings. Lexicons describe semantic possibilities, not what translators are obligated to choose in a given context. The issue is whether Modern translations consistently narrow, redirect, or omit language in passages that speak most clearly about the nature, authority, purity, permanence, and preservation of God’s words.
On several points, you effectively concede that concern.
For example, with imrah in Psalms 12:6, 138:2, and 119:140, you acknowledge that the term encompasses God’s spoken word broadly, and that narrowing it to subcategories such as “promises” or “decrees” is problematic. That is exactly my argument. The King James Bible preserves the broader scope, while Modern versions repeatedly restrict it.
With Psalms 96:13 and emunah, while the term can denote faithfulness or steadfastness, Scripture itself defines truth as God’s Word (John 17:17) and teaches that God judges by His words (John 12:48). Replacing “truth” with “faithfulness” removes the objective standard of judgment and replaces it with an attribute of God. That is not merely stylistic. It materially changes what the verse presents as the basis of judgment.
Regarding Psalms 12:7, appealing to verse 5 does not resolve the issue. The Hebrew allows “them” to refer back to the words of verse 6, and the KJV reflects that reading in harmony with Scripture’s broader teaching on verbal preservation. The NIV’s shift to people is an interpretive decision, not a grammatical necessity.
Your comments on Romans 10:17 are particularly important. You correctly note that the Greek reads rhema theou in the Textus Receptus tradition and rhema Christou in the Critical Text tradition, and you agree that the NIV’s interpretive move should have been placed in a footnote rather than in the text. That admission alone confirms that this verse represents a textual difference, not merely a translation choice. Modern Versions are following Vaticanus and Sinaiticus against the Textus Receptus at this point. In other words, we are not starting from the same Bible. You are also failing to look at the problem in the Modern Bible here on a theologically level as well. If it is Christ's words and not the Word of God we get our faith, then it can only be by the Red letters of Christ that you can actually get faith and not by Scripture from Paul or others.
Likewise, on 1 Peter 2:2, you acknowledge that omitting logikos was incorrect. That directly supports my claim that Modern translations sometimes remove words that explicitly tie spiritual nourishment to God’s Word.
I would also add that 1 Peter 1:23 includes both a textual difference and a translation difference, which further illustrates the pattern. Textually, the phrase “for ever” (eis ton aiōna) is present in the Textus Receptus and reflected in the KJV, but omitted in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and therefore absent from the RV, ASV, ERV, and later Critical Text–based versions. That is not stylistic. It is a manuscript-level omission that removes an explicit statement that the Word of God abides forever.
In addition, there is a translation shift involving phthartos and aphthartos. While “perishable” and “imperishable” are not lexically impossible, they soften the force of “corruptible” and “incorruptible.” In context, the KJV emphasizes that the seed of the Word is not merely long-lasting, but incapable of corruption. Modern renderings reduce that emphasis to durability rather than purity and inviolability.
So while we may differ on how serious any single change is when viewed in isolation, the cumulative pattern remains. Modern translations repeatedly narrow meanings, omit phrases, or redirect emphasis in passages that speak most clearly about God’s words themselves. In several cases, your own analysis acknowledges that these moves are problematic or unjustified.
That is why I do not see your response as refuting my argument. In key places, it actually supports it.
Side Note:
Keep in mind that Codex Vaticanus contains a reading where Jesus is pierced by a spear before He dies on the cross. This is an absurd and historically impossible reading, and yet it exists in one of the very manuscripts that underlies the Critical Text tradition you follow. Of course, this ridiculous reading does not appear in any popular Modern English Bible. That fact alone exposes the problem. Even your own underlying Greek text is selectively ignored when it becomes too embarrassing to defend.
The difference between our positions is clear. We had a Bible for centuries. During and after the Reformation, the church possessed real, identifiable Bibles translated from the Textus Receptus. While the TR itself went through minor refinement and standardization, those refinements occurred within the same textual stream and never left believers without Scripture. There was continuity, public use, and historical reception of these TR-based Bibles in the life of the church.
By contrast, the Critical Text tradition did not even enter the picture until 1881. Prior to that point, there were no Bibles in church history built on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, no continuous ecclesiastical reception of that textual line, and no history of believers recognizing it as Scripture. The textual base we have (i.e., the majority of Byzantine Manuscripts) has lectionaries that date back to the 3rd and 4th centuries. None of these are Alexandrian. This shows that the church rejected your texts in church history. Your textual foundation arrived late through academic reconstruction and came attached with ridiculous readings. Your Bible is an artificial construction of smashing together Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and yet they disagree in 3,000 places in the gospels alone. These manuscripts did not come from the broader use of believers. So the majority of New Testament history did not have the correct Bible until liberals like Westcott and Hort came along? This is why the Modern Bible Movement is just silly.
.....
I use Ai because it would take me weeks to address all of the content on my own. I am not willing to do that. You can verify if the information checks out or not with sources. But I do try to provide my own content and have Ai rewrite it. Some cases I am just limited on time. I do not like the way ChatGPT eliminates my original wording in my writeup and I am thinking of switching to Claude.
....
I've enjoyed working through a lot of data and resources, including textual variants in various manuscripts over the years and not getting stuck in the 1600's after researching the matter decades ago.
As I said, anyone can plug into AI today, and if opposed to AI, there's plenty of research and discussion on this topic to be found on search engines, wherein the arguments from all points of view can be read and considered. There are always outliers like yourself who I set aside as soon as I read your provocative attitude and associated fallacy-driven tactics.
So, what's not enjoyable is seeing your repetitive copy and paste, arrogant and disrespectful nonsense, looking for fights.
I signed you off some years ago on another forum. You haven't grown for the better.
First, I would like to know how a person is able to see a "broader pattern" before seeing the individual parts of the pattern. I can see how that is possible when beholding a picture, but not when considering translations.
Second, as enamored as you are with the KJV, this should not demean translators of other Bible versions. Translating the extant manuscripts is neither an exact science nor a zero sum game. Both sets of translators and the results of their efforts can be parts of the elephant's description.
Third, I have seen some discrepancies between the KJV and NIV couplets that you shared so far, and I tend to agree with you that the KJV is preferable for most of them, but this does not mean the NIV is heretical or demonic. I have seen no "changed doctrine" that contradicts GRFS per the Gospel, but I am keeping an open mind while wondering whether it is you who is fixated on the forest or quibbling about words (logomacheo, 1Tim. 6:4, 2Tim. 2:14).
Fourth, I admire those of you who have the gift of languages, because I certainly do not have that kind of memory,
so my concern using the gift of editing has been interpreting what y'all come up with in a way that is most coherent or harmonizes the most of GW.
Fifth, I am glad you can see that I agree with you on several points, because the reason you do not see my response as refuting your argument is because I am not trying to do that. So far I have agreed that the KJV is better than the NIV because of translating imrah as word rather than as some subcategory in Psalms 12:6, 138:2, and 119:140. I note that you agree emunah can mean faithfulness or steadfastness in Psalms 96:13. I understand that in Psalm 12:7 viewing "them" as referring to people is an interpretive decision, not a grammatical necessity, and I wonder if that is not true of a lot of the couplets. I am glad you affirmed my understanding of Romans 10:17 correctly (rhema theou vs. rhema Christou) as a textual difference, not merely a translation choice.
Sixth, is there some good reason that some translators follow the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts rather than the Textus Receptus at some points?
Seventh, I view all of Scripture as potentially red letters because of belief in what you called illumination. That is why regarding 1 Peter 2:2 and 1Peter 1:23 I do not want translators to omit important words like logikos and eis ton aiōna, because I see the HS (spiritual nourishment) and heaven implicit. I also see how “perishable” and “imperishable” for phthartos and aphthartos, removes the moral implication of “corruptible” and “incorruptible.”
So, while I may see a pattern emerging, I want us to be careful lest we force every couplet to fit into a preconceived mold.
Right?
I do not believe you are taking the full weight of the evidence that is in favor for the TR/KJV position. There are only three major positions today in the world of scholarship. The Majority Text position is minor and non-influential and its empire was shrouded by the cloud of Orthodox Christianity enforcing its rule through executions, imprisonments, and exiles over several centuries, etc.; The Critical Text Movement is rooted in deceptions involving its origin and had unitarians that were influential in its early beginnings. The Nestle and Aland text is essentially the Westcott and Hort Greek reconstruction of trying to smash together Vaticanus and Sinaiticus exists today in the Nestle and Aland tradition. The Nestle and Aland may use 50 or so other MSS but only in a minor way. The tradition is still Vaticanus and Sinaiticus priority. The tradition is a never ending shape-shifter Greek Nestle and Aland text. The NA is like a terminator. It will not stop. It will continue to keep coming out and promoting its web deception. It was never a Bible used in church history ever. Nobody used an amalgam of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the early centuries. Aleph and Codex B disagree with each other in 3,000 places. So, I am sorry. History is not on your side. You mention the NET Bible as if that was anything good. It's an absolute dumpster fire of a translation because Dan Wallace spews forth lots of false statements that one can verify as being false on their own with a basic internet search. The TR tradition which is settled in the KJV as its final form is the only tradition that has a settled text. It is a major influential Bible line that has a doctrinal purity when compared to the Critical Text.
......