God preserved the originals to us thru and in all of the various textual sources, and textual criticism is NOT a satanic system to destroy the Bible, but the means to rediscover what the original inspired texts actually stated!On the surface, this argument sounds so scholarly and educated. The trouble is, THE ORIGINAL WRITINGS NO LONGER EXIST.
If it’s true that only the originals were inspired, and they have been lost, then we have no Bible that we can be sure is God’s word. What would be the point in inspiring them, making them infallible, in the first place only for them to get destroyed? I believe in a God who is able not only to inspire but to preserve His word for us today. You say, fallen man has corrupted things, it was inevitable. Well fallen man was the one to put those words down in the first place! Remember what the writer of the first 5 books of the Bible did? Moses killed a man! What about the man who penned the Psalms? David was an adulterer and a murderer! Peter denied the Lord! Saul persecuted the church, putting believers to death! Yet He used those imperfect people to pen His perfect words originally no problem, you say. But He couldn’t use imperfect men to preserve them? Sorry, I don’t believe that. I believe in the Mighty God, maker of heaven and earth, who can do anything He wants in his power and sovereignty. I believe in a God who can and did keep and preserve His words to all generations from the corruption of man.
Think about this: why would God give Moses, David, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, etc. the perfect Bible, who actually talked with the Lord Himself, but not us, who are separated by Christ’s earthly ministry by 2,000 years? If anyone needs God’s pure word, it’s the Church in these wicked days! If he can preserve the Christian who comes to salvation in this earth for heaven from the corruption of the world, why could He not preserve the Scriptures from corruption?
The reason for that is usually they wore out from so much use. Copies had to be made. And this is where people assume that “mistakes” slipped in, in the copying process, as ancient men sloppily did their work. The fact is, the scribes who did this were masters in their craft. They had to find the middle letter of one page and match it to the middle letter of the one they were copying, that is how meticulous they were. If it didn’t match, the whole page was scrapped and they had to start over. For them it wasn’t just word-perfect, it was letter-perfect! Why the extreme procedures? Because they knew how important their task was.
Again, this goes back to the issue of unbelief. Do you believe God when He says He has preserved His word? Or are those verses just more man-made, “iffy” talk to you? At some point you either accept it as it is for what it says or you don’t. If it is true that He preserved His word, the originals carry no significance whatsoever if the perfect words are handed down the generations by means of copying.
Our entire Christian faith stands on the authority of one book called the Bible. Everything we believe, every doctrine we embrace, every aspect of our lives is to be governed by it.
Article Source:
The King James Bible is the Perfect Word of God - Her High Calling
KJV Only...which one!
- Thread starter Nancy
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
God preserved the originals to us thru and in all of the various textual sources, and textual criticism is NOT a satanic system to destroy the Bible, but the means to rediscover what the original inspired texts actually stated!
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Textual Criticism does not attempt to claim any inspiration by God but they use Science so falsely called. They use fleshy minds and not the leading of the Holy Spirit. Textual Criticism is wrong because it is an attack upon God’s Word like that of the devil because that is the same tactics we see the devil use in God’s Word. We can read about in the Bible about how the devil attempts to add, delete, and change God’s Word. I have already shown the corrupt doctrines already and that is proof enough already.
Textual Critics may even have good intentions, but as the saying goes… “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” The Bible warns in adding or subtracting to His Word and if one is to do so… they are falling under great penalty by God according to Revelation 22:18-19.
Again, I am not saying a person cannot be saved used a Modern Bible, but the point here is that it is an issue of growth involving our Sanctification. I also believe that in some cases, Modern bibles or Textual Criticism can lead a believer to fall away from the faith, as well. For God is not the author of confusion.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Any person who does an unbiased comparison between the KJB vs. Modern Bibles can see that the King James Bible does not have false doctrines like the Modern bibles do. This alone shows you their corruption. A new NIV or NASB comes out every few years to line the pockets of men with filthy lucre. Textual Critics believe the Bible is their own words that they have copyrighted and control under the Law. Thus they show that it is their own version of God’s words and not actually God’s words themselves.
The art of textual criticism was used and practiced by the 1611 Kjv translators, were they wrong and evil then?
The klv has had MANY revisions in it over the years, 1611, 1789, 1873. 1900 if was the perfect Translation, why any need to modify and revise at all?
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
This is a myth. No actual major word changes were actually made. The words all mean the same thing unless it was a printer error, typographical or an unintentional scribal error. While Jack Chick probably makes you want to run for the hills, or puke, he does provide a good brief explanation on what appears to be differences in the KJB (When they are not).
However, I do slightly disagree with Mr. Chick in that the Cambridge Edition KJB (circa 1900) is the settled King James Bible. There was clarity of words with the Cambridge Edition and it was settled by this time (Although the words are saying the same thing, the words are more clarified in these very few minor changes with the pure Cambridge Edition). Anyways, all major KJB Editions that were not faced with such accidents of human error all say the same thing. Just look at your Modern Bibles. The NIV makes tons of changes between it’s own edition in the thousands range. Why? Because of money. Copyright retention. A certain percentage of amount of changes are needed for copyright and so obviously it is filthy lucre that guides the creators of Modern bibles and not the leading of God by any means.
The different KJB Editions did not have this problem. To not see the problem in Modern Bibles and or Textual Criticism is simply a person burying their head in the sand (whereby they are not seeing the obvious).
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
This is simply a myth. As I told you before, The KJB translators employed Formal Equivalence (word for word translation). Many Modern translators today primarily employ Dynamic Equivalence instead (thought for thought). For in Modern Translation camp it's not about having the exact words of God for they believe no Bible is perfect and that they are all riddled with errors. But who gets to decide what is true or false in the Bible? Do they get to sit in the seat of God and determine what God said? Well… they do. That’s the problem that flies over your head, my friend.
There are passages in the Kjv that were more dynamic translation then formally!
There have been hundred of differences, and many of them were entire word changes over the years!
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Your missing the point.
Can you say that the KJB is primarily Formal Equivalency or Dynamic Equivalency?
Can you say that the Modern Bibles are primarily Formal Equivalency or Dynamic Equivalency?
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Not so. Besides printing and scribal errors, there are no major changes to the text that alters meaning among the major widely used KJB Editions. If you disagree…. Then prove it.
We are talking about if there are any changes between the 1611 KJB vs. the KJB pure Cambridge Edition circa 1900 we have today (Which is the KJV used at Biblehub.com). Again, this does not include font type changes, printing errors, or scribal errors. We are talking about actual real word changes that alters the meaning of a sentence from reputable places like Cambridge. We are talking about reputable places like Oxford (before 1881 - Before the the time of the Revisers of Westcott and Hort took hold of the minds of men). For Oxford later wrongfully made changes to the Scofield KJB bible using his name long after he was dead that favored the Revisers. Oh, and a KJB Edition that was burned up in the fire before it could be circulated does not count. For a King James Bible should have some kind of influence upon the people to have any real significance.
Note 1: The New King James Bible does not count because it is a counterfeit King James Bible based off the Alexandrian manuscripts that the Modern Bibles use.
Note 2: The New Scofield’s KJB is also like the New King James Bible in that it alters the TR and corrupts it. So this one does not count, either.
Both the New King James Bible and the New Scofield King James have notes that favor the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts. The New Scofield KJB also makes actual changes. So these KJB Editions don’t count. They are counterfeit KJB’s just as their are counterfeit dollar bills. Check out this article here on the New Scofield KJB:
Chick.com: Isn't the New Scofield Bible a King James Bible'?
But the worst damage is Scofield’s Notes that influence the reader by his flawed thinking: See this article here. Scofield also popularized the false Dual Nature Theology that is taught in many churches today (See here). This is one reason why Christians are wrongfully justifying sin today while under God’s grace.
As for the New King James:
The NKJV is a perfect bait and switch Bible.
In other words, it was clearly created as an attempt to deceive.
Don’t believe me? Just watch this video:
Keep in mind I believe the King James Bible was settled with the KJB Pure Cambridge Edition (circa. 1900). If you are talking about later KJB Editions when Textual Criticism started to take rise in attacking the Bible (By making tons of major significant changes), this would not really count. Your goal is to prove if there are hundreds of word changes between the 1611 and the 1900 Cambridge Edition. If you can’t prove that, you don’t have any real case to make.
Side Note:
I am curious. Are you the poster called, YeshuaFan at ChristianForums.com?
Last edited:
Unfortunately Satan perverted proper textual criticism. Therefor all the modern textual critics and scholars have been promoting corrupt texts. Not what was actually written but what was corrupted soon after it was written. Thousands of omissions were incorporated. Plus additions, transpositions, substitutions, and alterations. There are at least 1500 changes to the Bible which are doctrinally significant. All because of corrupt Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus) and B (Codex Vaticanus). Other manuscripts of the minority text are A,C, and D.
The Nkjv translators used SAME source texts as ther kjv team did, and they just put into margins the alternate readings of the MT/CT, and the Kjv has had many changes in the words between the differen t editions!
You have NO proof that they were corrupted texts though, as your guilt by association would mean thsat the 1611 was corrupted also, due to Eramus as a catholic, and use of the Vulgate and of the Rheims as consulting sources!
There were various editions of the KJV: 1629; 1762; 1769.
Today, the KJ21 does not even call itself a new edition, but rather an updating.
Also were the 1873 and 1900, so which edition is really the "perfect English translation?"
What ppl really seem to be wanting who use such terminology is a kind of iconography, rather than words which demand prayerful, spiritual exercise to 'mark, read and inwardly digest' Divine revelation.
There is more than enough proof for those who care to investigate. And your mention of Erasmus and the Vulgate (as though they negatively influenced the KJB) shows that you know little or nothing about this matter.
I must confess I do deeply appreciate the KJV, although I don't go along with some of the rhetoric with which it is sometimes promoted.
Similar threads
