Things to Consider Before Attempting to Correct the King James Bible

Then, you have not studied the differences between the KJV and all the modern versions. Truth has been changed and doctrines perverted.

That's a VERY big "if". Since it is an unproven idea, you should not be basing anything on it.

It's also easily falsifiable. The KJV borrowed heavily from earlier English translations of Greek editions. If the text of the KJV is inspired, then the text of the prior edition(s) is inspired. An identical block of text cannot be inspired in one version and uninspired in another. So either these previous editions were also inspired, or none of them are.

Here's another postulate for you: If you learn to apply some simple logical tests to your assertions before posting, you will post fewer ridiculous arguments.

Fallacy! You're assuming that the KJV is the standard of correctness for comparison. It isn't.

And that’s exactly why I say that if God isn’t behind the translation then it’s mans opinion of the word of God and not even close to the word of God.

Only those who are wedded to the accuracy of the KJV worry about such things or consider such arguments to be "casting doubt on the accuracy of the KJV". The rest of us trust in the accuracy of God's word and recognize the inherent weakness of any translation.

If I remember right, about 80% of NT quotes of the OT came from the Septuagint. So even then there was a choice of Greek or Hebrew, and I’m sure the same arguments that are ongoing here might have been present even during the time of the apostles.

Your view of inspiration is presuppositional and cannot be proven. Like John146 you presume that the KJV is correct, and your presupposition of inspiration makes it impossible for you to examine rationally any serious challenge. You simply reject it outright. The line of reasoning is as valid as that of the flat-earther who claims every piece of contrary evidence is a conspiratorial lie.

I have no problem with what you suggest. The "original" book of Jeremiah was cut up and burned and yet God told Jeremiah to write another copy and add to it words of truth. Was the copy of the original inspired? Yep. There other examples of double inspiration throughout Scripture.

Hilarious! In fact you are right about there being only one inspired version!! That was the original autographs in Hebrew and Aramaic for the OT and Greek for the NT. And fortunately the manuscript copies go back to the 2nd century, to say nothing of the fact that the early church fathers in their works, quoted those inspired versions.

That is one thing among many that shows the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 is considered spurious, and a late second century addition, because none of the church fathers quoted it. Something which an inspired copy would not have! Because it is an addition, and no, the KJV does not correct the Greek!

You constantly make these nonsensical assertatiins, with no evidence to back you up. Show me external or internal evidence that the KJV is inspired! And if you resort to bring refined 7 times in the fire, I will lose it! Because it says, "My word." Not the KJV, which was not written until one and a half millennium after the birth of Christ, to say nothing of centuries that elapsed before the birth of Christ.

No more absurd assertions, not backed by some kind of evidence. If the KJV is inspired, rather than the original autographs, then so are modern versions.

And as for the diffferences between KJV and modern copies, you are right! The KJV is a faulty version, with all kinds of nonsense like unicorns and dragons, numerous additions and translation errors. I speak Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek, I know 100% for sure that the KJV is rife with errors. That alone disqualifies it from being some ridiculous 16th century "from the mouth of God" translation. God doesn't make mistakes! And although I acknowledge the KJV has been used of God, it's time has past. Read it you want, but I prefer modern versions, which are far closer to the original autographs than the corrupted KJV.

Probably you should focus on Jesus Christ, and what ALL Bibles have to say about him, rather than the dubious choice of spending hours defending a corrupt Bible, that is not even in a language spoken today.

This has nothing to do with "double inspiration". It has to do with your certainty that the KJV is without error. Having found errors in it myself, I will never accept that view.

Your "Yep" indicates that you think you have this all figured out. I leave you to your delusion.

”The accuracy of Gods word”.... You contradict your own statements. First you say the rest of us trust in the accuracy of the word of God and then your very next statement states that there is no accurate translation.

So where do you and the rest find this “accurate word of God” that doesn’t exist in any translation?

Lacking evidence.

Please post actual manuscript evidence, plus translation differences in modern versions that doctrine has been changed or prevented.

I didn't contradict myself at all. You misread what I wrote. I didn't state that there is no accurate translation.

Ok my bad, I assumed inherent weaknesses meant inaccuracy. Maybe you could clarify what you meant. What are the inherent weaknesses of all translations?

I'm beginning to wonder if you are even cognizant as to the WHY a "written record" HAD to be kept in the first place?

(hint)
Genesis 6
3 And the Lord said, My Spirit will not always strive with man, for that HE ALSO is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

The Lord didn't say abandon, did He?

Deuteronomy 31
6 Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the Lord thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; He will NOT fail thee, NOR Forsake thee.
8 And the Lord, he it is that doth go before thee; He WILL be WITH thee, He WILL NOT fail thee, NEITHER FORSAKE thee: fear not, neither be dismayed.

Here we see the Spirit OF God!

And here? We'll see just ONE of the things our Heavenly Father "IMPUTED IN/WITH" Christ:

Romans 8
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the "SPIRIT OF ADOPTION", whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

11 But if the SPIRIT of HIM that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also MAKE ALIVE your "NATURAL/CARNAL" bodies BY HIS SPIRIT that dwelleth in you.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the SPIRIT OF GOD dwell in you. Now if any man have not the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is none of his.

Meaning? If you don't "get" this "crux of the biscut?" It doesn't matter WHICH translation you read!

Having said this, however? I (myself) prefer the KJV. But, like ANY "material/EXTERNAL possession?" It can BECOME an Idol!

Does this turn Christ into little more then "CHOPPED LIVER?" God FORBID!

Does this turn the "Spirit of God", INTO "CHOPPED LIVER? In the "eyes of some men?" YES!
"CHRIST FORBID!!!"

I am in absolute agreement. It is the title of the OP kind of gave me a giggle, because I studied language and linguistics and none of can just pick up the Word and translate it from any language. First of all the men, far more sstudied and intelligent than I, admit that much of the Word they have translated but they do not quite understand it. This ispartly due to the fact the some words and their definitions, though present in the original texts do not have a translation because their meanings have fallen by the ways ide.

All this considered, you are quite right, I think and believe, but do not try to tell the intelligent folks out there that God is in control of what is understood and what is not, because they cannot accept that........All love in Jesus Christ, and many more blessings…j

No it’s not presuppositional, I believe what I believe from reading the Bible. It’s beyond my ability to understand how anyone can read the Bible and conclude that God isn’t capable or wasn’t willing to give his word to everybody in all languages.

First of all, how about the simple and basic doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible? That's the most important doctrine of them all. Can God's word be trusted, every word? It's the whole foundation of everything God has revealed to us about Himself and what we believe about our Redeemer and Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He either told us the truth when He said that heaven and earth shall pass away but His words would not pass away, or He lied to us and cannot be trusted. You pick which option you are going to believe.

Is the Jesus Christ in your Bible the one who lied in John 7:8 as the NASB, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible read? That would go against the most important doctrine of all. The validity of God's word.

John 7:8-10 Here we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says: "I go NOT up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Gallilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." He did in fact go up to the feast.

Vaticanus, as well as P66, 75, and the majority of all texts read as does the KJB with: "I go not up YET unto this feast", and so do the Revised Version 1881, Geneva, Tyndale, Bishops', Coverdale, the NIV, Holman Standard, the 2005 ISV (International Standard Version), Young, Weymouth, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902.

However Sinaiticus says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so do the NASB, ASV, RSV, ESV , Catholic St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible 1985, and Wallace's NET version thus making our Lord a liar. The nature of this so called "science" is also seen in that Westcott and Hort originally read "NOT YET" and so did the previous Nestle-Aland critical texts up until a few years ago. But the more recent ones have "scientifically" changed to now read "I do NOT go to this feast."

The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus differ thousand of times, and these are the "trusted" manuscripts of the new age versions.

But it's still the Passover 16, the Jews were not celebrating it the way we celebrate "Easter".

Adam Clarke's commentary:

Intending after Easter to bring him forth - Μετα το πασχα, After the passover. Perhaps there never was a more unhappy, not to say absurd, translation than that in our text.

But, before I come to explain the word, it is necessary to observe that our term called Easter is not exactly the same with the Jewish passover. This festival is always held on the fourteenth day of the first vernal full moon; but the Easter of the Christians, never till the next Sabbath after said full moon; and, to avoid all conformity with the Jews in this matter, if the fourteenth day of the first vernal full moon happen on a Sabbath, then the festival of Easter is deferred till the Sabbath following.

Full argument

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/acts-12.html