You do understand that the All Powerful God is capable of correcting man made errors too though, aren't you?
I have always consider the KJV to be the Pure Word of God, not by any means the only Pure Word in the English language I love most translation written at that time also NKJV, the Amplified Bible, Webster and Jubilee just to name a few.
Was that because you were raised with it? I personally find the archaic language off-putting and as a Bible teacher, would never recommend a KJV or similar to a new student. Its language is too confusing. The reason being that a "translation" is intended to convey what is written in one language clearly expressed in another. Some treat the KJV as if was written by God himself, but we have to remember that the original scripture was not written in English...especially not in archaic English, which no one today speaks unless they are in a Shakespearean play.....
The fact is that languages change over time, which also affects Bible translations. A translation that was easy to read when it was first produced may not be so clear later on.
A good example of this is the
King James Version, first produced in 1611. It became one of the most popular English Bibles. However, the wording used in the
King James Version was actually revised over time to make adjustments for minor language changes. This translation used the name "Jehovah" a few times. In most places in the Hebrew Scriptures where God’s name was originally found, it used the word “LORD” in capital letters. Later printings also used the word “LORD” in capital letters in some verses in the Christian Greek Scriptures that were quoted from the Hebrew scriptures. In this way, the
King James Version at least acknowledged that God’s name belonged in the so-called New Testament.
The Bible is one testament....none of it is 'old or new'....it is all the unalterable word of God. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Don’t care for most modern translations not because of little word changes but questioning at least twice a 12 verse passage or more
Mark 16:9-20,
John 7:53-8:11. I say at least twice because some in this area of Bible Criticism have question whole books, like James, II Peter and Jude.
If we believe that the whole Bible is God's word, then we can be confident that any additions or subtractions would come to light, be exposed and corrected. No?
Those verses were not included in the earlier manuscripts and hence do not belong in God's inspired word. If they were not in the earliest manuscripts then someone added them later. Do you still want them there? I have to ask why?
IMO some of these are wolves in sheep’s clothing, but I have known many a True Believer who do this and it just disheartening to me.
We have a duty to teach God's word in its entirety.....identifying what belongs there, and what was added later is important....isn't it?
I guess one little verse hurts the most I
John 5:7; why I would say at least half of the True Church if not much more, consider this verse added at a much later date.
There is a good reason for this....it was not in the earliest manuscripts either.
1 John 5:7-8....
"For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." (NASB)
From the Greek Interlinear.....
"For hoti there are eimi three treis that ho testify martyreō: 8 the ho Spirit pneuma and kai the ho water hydōr and kai the ho blood haima; and kai the ho three treis are eimi in eis · ho accord heis."
So there was nothing in the original manuscripts that confirmed the trinity because the Jews never knew their God as a threesome.
Their God was "One". (Deuteronomy 6:4)
So am I alone, or perhaps many of you are like me and keep hearing the serpent’s word to Eve:
…Yea hath God said… Genesis 3:1?
I'm sure you are not alone......but since the devil is a very busy fellow...who knows what he is capable of doing...?
Maybe the serpent has been whispering in other quarters....maybe he was saying to the translators, you need to add a bit here?
