KJV Only...which one!

[CadyandZoe]

There are many changes that favor the corrupt Critical Text in the NKJV.

The NKJV is a perfect bait and switch Bible.
In other words, it was clearly created as an attempt to deceive.

I have been down that road and it is wasted time. Once I came to understand how translations are made, I saw this issue in a completely different light. I no longer argue over translations. I never believed those who suggested that Satan or pagans created a translation. And I never believed that The KJV was the word of God.

Rather, all translations attempt to relay the "words" of God to anyone interested to learn more about God's revealed word. But frankly, Jesus-followers are quick to admit that HE, Jesus Christ, is the Word of God.

 

[Berserk]

Behold: "Typical of a deceptive person, who is pretending to be an authority, you are stating claims as if they are true.
Gehold: "No evidence is presented, just the stated claims. And if i push you for evidence, you'll list "scholarship evidence", as if there isn't the same amount of this on the other side of your argument."

Behold: "The reality is, you would try to instill DOUBT about a bible version, based on what some would argue, but other's would not."

Behold: "You say the earliest and best known manuscripts prove.......... and Yet the Authorized is created from many of exactly these.."

A factually false statement. Byzantine manuscripts are later and the KJV translators lacked access to important earlier and more accurate manuscripts. For example, the Byzantine texts
Behold: "And you can never prove that just because something is an "earlier manuscript", that makes it better."
See, "eariler" does not mean its better or more accurate......its just means it an older copy...nothing more."

Let me make this simple. There are 400,000 variant readings in ancient NT manuscripts. Why? Because tired eyes miscopied and even changed the texts to make what they viewed as improvements. So later scribes unknowingly received manuscripts with those errors present and added their own errors. for example, the Byzantine manuscripts on which the KJV depends are notorious for often conflating variant readings from older NT manuscripts. Thus, the Byzantine scribes avoid the hard work of investigating which of each earlier variant reading has the better chance of being the original reading. The underlying KJV manuscripts fare poorly when compared with Origen' comparisons of later readings with earlier Greek manuscripts of the NT, manuscripts earlier than any currently available manuscripts.
For example, in his magisterial Commentary on Mark, Vincent Taylor can refer to "the almost universally held conclusion that 16:9-20 is not an original part of Mark. Both the internal and the external evidence are decisive (p. 610)." Taylor adds: "Eusebius and Jerome attest that it was wanting in almost all the Greek manuscripts known to them." One ancient Armenian manuscript of Mark even identifies the forger as "Aristo the Elder."

Behold: "And again you state something isnt true in your #(2) "And do you really think that the risen Lord would identify "poison-drinking and snake-handling."

Duh, learn to read: I didn't say the Lord wouldn't identify poison-drinking and snake-handling. I said the Lord wouldn't identify these bizarre activities as SIGNS of the true believer as 16:17 does.


Behold: "And its apparent that you've never studied a bible,"
Just another of your mindless pontifications. Unlike you, I have studied the Bible at the Masters and Doctoral degree level, and I know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Behold: "you said something ignorant about "snake handling", when in fact Paul was bitten by a Viper, and it had no effect....So Mark, 16:17......is a prophecy, that Paul fulfilled, deceiver."

Again, learn to read: Acts 28:3-5 never says Paul was bitten by a viper![/QUOTE]

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I've never used a MAC. I hope you can use the Parallels Windows works for you.

Thank you. I did a check. My Windows (running with the Parallels program) is really slow. But my wife has a Windows laptop, and so I decided to buy the software on disc and try it on her computer instead. I will keep you and others posted on what I like about it (When I get the disc).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I've never used a MAC. I hope you can use the Parallels Windows works for you.

I made the switch to MAC because I had a lot of PC problems in the past. You don’t have to worry about virus trouble so much with MAC like you do with a PC. Once I made the switch I never looked back. The downside is running Windows on my MAC and having it run smoothly forever. It works for a few years and then starts to run sluggish (Unless I upgrade my MAC - which I don’t want to do because it costs money). MAC is geared more towards the arts and writing. Seeing I am into both, this is a perfect computer for me. My current favorite is the IMAC (the computer built into the screen). They are pricey, but they last longer then your average PC (At least in my experience anyways).

The trick to using a MAC is knowing your keyboard shortcuts and getting used to the Magic Mouse. Once you got that down, it’s easy. There are also some other differences of where to find things like your programs, etcetera (But it is all quick to learn seeing there is Google and YouTube).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Oh yay! You're over here now. Ugh...

Grace, peace, and love to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
May His blessings shine upon you greatly.

You err from the start because you are creating a false equivalency as if the KJV is the source material.

It’s only false if you provide evidence that such is the case and you explain carefully away the evidence I have put forth. So far I have not seen anyone really do that. You have to explain away the false doctrines in Modern Bibles. You have to explain away how Jesus appears to sin in Modern Bibles. You have to explain away how the devil’s name is placed in Modern Bibles where they do not belong. You have to explain away how not only Westcott and Hort held to heretical beliefs but you have to explain away how many Textual Critical scholars and or those who worked on Modern bibles held to heretical beliefs vs. how the line of manuscripts that led to the King James Bible were the kind of men who were martyred for their faith. You have to explain away the dark origins of the Alexandrian manuscripts which is tied to Gnosticism and their denial of the Trinity (of which we see with the removal of 1 John 5:7). The list goes on and on.

 

[Naomanos]

Grace, peace, and love to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
May His blessings shine upon you greatly.

Been here for months.

It’s only false if you provide evidence that such is the case and you explain carefully away the evidence I have put forth.

Already have. It was in the post that you replied to. It's a false equivalency because the KJV is itself a translation and not the source material that others can be compared to.

See, pretty easy to debunk your claim from the start.

It is a fine translation and anyone who can read it can. I Have no issues with that at all. I take issue when told that other translations should be compared to the KJV as if the KJV is the source material, which it isn't.

You want to say that the KJV is the translation for you, good on ya. Have at it. However, don't act like the KJV is the end all be all and that every translation has to be compared to it, a translation itself and not the source material.

When I hold my NKJV I hold the word of God in my hand because the words in it are from God and God's words are perfect.

That's all I will say on the subject. Tired of arguing the same thing over and over with you again.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have been down that road and it is wasted time. Once I came to understand how translations are made, I saw this issue in a completely different light. I no longer argue over translations. I never believed those who suggested that Satan or pagans created a translation. And I never believed that The KJV was the word of God.

Rather, all translations attempt to relay the "words" of God to anyone interested to learn more about God's revealed word. But frankly, Jesus-followers are quick to admit that HE, Jesus Christ, is the Word of God.

Things are not always as they appear.

The translation of the King James Bible (NT Textus Receptus) uses Formal Equivalence and Modern Bibles (NT Critical Text) uses Dynamic Equivalence. Formal Equivalence is word for word translation and Dynamic Equivalence is a thought for thought translation. So one approach to the Bible is more liberal (Which is why those who are Textual Critics are liberal themselves and disbelieve many parts of Scripture like not believing the story of Jonah was real, etcetera). In fact, many of your Modern bibles are riddled with Luciferian statements (“Yea, hath God said,…?”) with the addition of footnotes that say that this part of the Bible is not a part of the originals or best manuscripts, etcetera.

If you were to compare the KJB vs. Modern Bibles: The real issue is if you were to see that various doctrines are watered down and outright attacked (if doctrine is important to you). You will see the changes are for the worse and not for the better in Modern Bibles. Another big one is the history of the Bible lines. If you were to compare the history leading up to the KJB and it’s history afterwards, you will see that it appears wholesome in that it made people believe in God’s Word and even some to be martyred for their faith. With Modern Bibles you hear of Textual Critics who attack the Bible and who hold to heretical beliefs and or who are into Liberalism.

 

[Berserk]

Bible Highlighter: "I strongly disagree that a Christian needs to be educated in Modern Textual Criticism because it can in some cases lead to unbelief. If you were to research how many Christians lose their faith at Bible college, you will discover it is approximately 70% of Christians who lose their faith. I do not believe it is the party atmosphere or worldly Christians who have influenced these Christian students to walk away from the faith.
They certainly don't lose their faith because of Text Criticism. They discover by direct investigation of the original language and cultural background that much of what they learned in their fundamentalist churches is uninformed rubbish.

BH: "I believe the real culprit is Textual Criticism in the fact that it makes them doubt that there is a perfect Bible that they can trust and rely upon (Knowing that God did preserve His Word today)."
As mentioned, there are 400,000 variant readings in NT manuscripts. So you need to ask yourself: "If God didn't care enough to preserve the original text of Scripture, why imagine that He would inspire an originally inerrant text, especially since the Bible never even claims to be inerrant.
But, you say, the Greek text used for the KJV is inerrant. Use common sense. The KJV is based on the latest manuscripts. The more sleepy scribes copy these manuscripts, the more errors creep into the texts, which are then copied by misled later scribes, and so on. And it can be proven, for example, that, among their many errors, the KJV's Greek manuscripts conflate variant readings from earlier manuscripts rather than research which of the variant readings are correct.

BH: "While Textual Criticism existed with a few before Westcott and Hort, it wasn't until these two men whereby Textual Criticism took off. For Westcott and Hort are the fathers who popularized the Modern Bible Translation movement with their Critical Revised Version. This is not good because Westcott and Hort held to heretical beliefs."

Their beliefs are not the issue. What is decisive is that they had access to earlier and more accurate manuscripts and demonstrated how, when, and why so many errors crept into the texts used by the KJV. Most experts concur with the principles they discovered for identifying original Greek readings. Quotations from NT early church fathers who wrote prior to the Greek NT manuscripts available to us refute readings that crept into the corrupt text used in the KJV.
Eusebius and Jerome make it clear that of the many manuscripts they know, very few include the bogus KJV ending of Mark 16:9-20. Indeed, one ancient Armenian manuscript of Mark even identifies the forger of this chapter, Aristo the Elder. The inauthenticity of 16:9-20 is confirmed by many stylistic differences from Mark's style. those of us who care enough about the purity of God's Word marvel that fundamentalists who have the highest view of biblical inspiration mindlessly use the translation with the most corrupt and late manuscripts.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Been here for months.

Christian Forums banned the KJB Only discussion just recently a couple of days ago because of my passionate defense of it. That’s why I am here.

Already have. It was in the post that you replied to. It's a false equivalency because the KJV is itself a translation and not the source material that others can be compared to.

See, pretty easy to debunk your claim from the start.

In the Bible, there was no boasting of the originals and or claiming that they were the only ones to be divine or perfect while all translation copies were imperfect.

Instead, in the Bible: We can see a pattern of God preserving copies of His Word, and not the original autographs.

(a) Moses destroyed the original 10 Commandments on tablets of stone (the original autograph) (Exodus 32:19), and yet a copy was perfectly made to replace it (Exodus 34:1-4).

(b) King Jehoiakim burns the scroll of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:22-23), but God had Jeremiah make another copy (Jeremiah 36:27-28).

(c) Proverbs 25:1 says, “These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.” (Proverbs 25:1).​

In the New Testament, Philip heard the Ethiopian eunuch read from a manuscript of Isaiah.

“And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?” (Acts of the Apostles 8:30).​

Although Scripture does not specifically say this was a copy of Isaiah, and not the original autograph of Isaiah, logic dictates that the most plausible explanation is that the Ethiopian eunuch had a copy of a manuscript of Isaiah (and not the original). For the odds of him just happening to have the original would seem highly unlikely.

Philip calls this copy of Isaiah he possessed as Scripture.

“Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.” (Acts of the Apostles 8:35).

In fact, Jesus also read from the book of Isaiah and so unless the Ethiopian enuch had stole the originals that Jesus read from, then we must assume it is a copy of which is called Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
So the copy of this Scripture was inspired by God.
If you were to pay attention and notice the verse above it, it says that Timothy had known the Holy Scriptures since he was a child. Chances are he did not have the originals so as to study from. Yet, he had copies which was called the Holy Scriptures. Holy implies something is divine in the Bible.

So the belief of “Originals Onlyism” (i.e. Only the Originals are Perfect) that says that we need to look to the original autograph because it is perfect, and the copies are flawed and full of errors is unbiblical. Believers in God's Word can trust that God has preserved a copy of His Word for us today that is perfect (Which would be consistent in the way God operates involving the preservation of His Word). This then leads us to conclude that there must be a perfect Bible that we can find today.

It is a fine translation and anyone who can read it can. I Have no issues with that at all. I take issue when told that other translations should be compared to the KJV as if the KJV is the source material, which it isn't.

God is not the God of the dead but of the living.
God’s Word did not die out among the dead whereby we are left to try and figure out what He said.

You want to say that the KJV is the translation for you, good on ya. Have at it. However, don't act like the KJV is the end all be all and that every translation has to be compared to it, a translation itself and not the source material.

You simply are unaware of the many evidences in favor of the King James Bible being the Word of God for today. Even if you were presented with such evidence, you do have to at least hear out the case with an open mind. If not, then you are simply seeing what you want to see.

When I hold my NKJV I hold the word of God in my hand because the words in it are from God and God's words are perfect.

That's all I will say on the subject. Tired of arguing the same thing over and over with you again.

The NKJV is not the Word of God. Which NKJV? There have been several and they all say something different. In fact, in the New Testament 1970’s version NKJV they said they were not going to subject us to the Critical Text and then they lied and did so by 1982 with the full version and it’s footnotes and then later with it’s changes.

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:

 

[BarneyFife]

Grace, peace, and love to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
May His blessings shine upon you greatly.



It’s only false if you provide evidence that such is the case and you explain carefully away the evidence I have put forth. So far I have not seen anyone really do that. You have to explain away the false doctrines in Modern Bibles. You have to explain away how Jesus appears to sin in Modern Bibles. You have to explain away how the devil’s name is placed in Modern Bibles where they do not belong. You have to explain away how not only Westcott and Hort held to heretical beliefs but you have to explain away how many Textual Critical scholars and or those who worked on Modern bibles held to heretical beliefs vs. how the line of manuscripts that led to the King James Bible were the kind of men who were martyred for their faith. You have to explain away the dark origins of the Alexandrian manuscripts which is tied to Gnosticism and their denial of the Trinity (of which we see with the removal of 1 John 5:7). The list goes on and on.

How do you know that you are free of false doctrine? Every translator who ever lived has been biased in some manner. How do you know that some false doctrine didn't at all influence any of the translators of the Authorized Version, and that you are not affected by that today? I would with all intent of due respect submit that the insistence upon the necessity of a perfect translation suggests that God is dependent upon man's skill to convey His will to His children.

And, again, what about the billions who can't speak English? Do you really think it is possible to translate the King James perfectly into every language in the world? Are these people left with no hope of ever having the pure Word of God?

Do you know that in the dark ages people like the Waldenses and Hugenots risked their lives to smuggle to others one or two pages of the Bible sewn inside the fabric of their garments?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

How do you know that you are free of false doctrine? Every translator who ever lived has been biased in some manner. How do you know that some false doctrine didn't at all influence any of the translators of the Authorized Version, and that you are not affected by that today? I would with all intent of due respect submit that the insistence upon the necessity of a perfect translation suggests that God is dependent upon man's skill to convey His will to His children.

First, hypothetically speaking, if such a thing was true (Which it is not): Then this would suggest that there is false doctrine in all bibles and we would have to conclude there is no perfect Bible in existence today. If so, then God’s Word has failed to be true according to Psalms 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 24:35, and 1 Peter 1:23-25. But the Scriptures testify that they cannot be broken (See: John 10:35). So we have to conclude that if we are going to believe such verses then there must be a perfect set of Scriptures in existence today. If so, we should be able to discover them because if we are to believe the Bible, we know God communicated in the world language at one point in time with the Greek (After Israel rejected their Messiah). We know by reading the Bible itself that God preserved copies of His Word and He did not preserve the original manuscripts (See: Post #109 for the verses).

Second, a simple side by side comparison between the KJB vs. Modern Bibles lets the reader know that the changes are for the worse and not for the better. We know the KJB comes from a particular line of manuscripts (Antioch, Syria), and the Modern Bibles come from another line of manuscripts (Alexandria, Egypt). Antioch is where Christians were first named in the Bible. The Syriac Peshitta is one of the manuscripts that lines up with the King James Bible (The Syriac Peshitta is dated at the 2nd or 3rd century). However, Egypt (The origin of Modern Bible manuscripts) is predominantly referenced as being negative in the Bible. Plus, Alexandria is one of the major fountain heads of Gnosticism. If you were to Google Arianism (Anti-Trinitarianism), Alexandria, Egypt is the answer you will get. Also, the concluding statement of the Creed of the Alexandrian Cult is that THERE IS NO FINAL, ABSOLUTE, WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF GOD ANYWHERE ON THIS EARTH. No wonder the Critical Text followers believe this way. If that does not convince you, you can see how holy living is attacked or watered down in Modern bibles. Romans 8:1 is chopped in half. Certain verses make Jesus appear to sin (See point #24 here to check out the verses). Yet, we are basically told to follow His moral example or conduct in Scripture (1 Peter 2:21) (1 John 2:6).

Three, the 17 popular omitted verses in Modern Bibles (Which are retained in the KJB) are mentioned by the early church fathers.

And, again, what about the billions who can't speak English? Do you really think it is possible to translate the King James perfectly into every language in the world? Are these people left with no hope of ever having the pure Word of God?

The King James Bible is available in other languages:

Textus Receptus in Spanish (RVG 2010):
https://www.amazon.com/Santa-Biblia-Rústica-Valera-Spanish/dp/0758907567/

King James Francais in French:
Bible King James Française | King James Française

Koning Jacobus Vertaling in Dutch:
http://www.koningjacobusvertaling.org/info_english.php

Bibelen Guds Ord in Norwegian:
http://www.hermon.no/netbibelen/

Thai King James Bible Version:
The Bible (พระคัมภีร์ไทย)

Korean King James Version:
https://www.amazon.com/Korean-English-Bible-Leather-Golden/dp/B005DPPENA/

Brazillian Portuguese (the BKJ):
Bíblia King James Fiel 1611

But even if this was not the case, was it unfair that God only made available the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek at one point in time?

Surely not.

Also, some have a hang up with the 1600’s English and they believe that God would never make His words difficult to understand. But Jesus spoke in parables whereby many did not understand it’s true meaning. Only disciples of Christ knew the meaning at that time He gave the parables. Also, when Jesus spoke of His death and resurrection with His disciples before the cross, they did not understand what He was talking about. However, Jesus did not sit them down and use hand puppets to illustrate what was about to happen.

Why?

Believers are to study to show themselves approved unto God (2 Timothy 2:15). This truth in 2 Timothy 2:15 is altered in Modern Bibles. For the devil does not want believers to know that God commands us to study His Word. For the Bible says God’s people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6).

Do you know that in the dark ages people like the Waldenses and Hugenots risked their lives to smuggle to others one or two pages of the Bible sewn inside the fabric of their garments?

The Waldenses are actually a reason why you should believe in the King James Bible. 1 John 5:7 is found in the Apostle’s creed used by the Waldenses. 1 John 5:7 is removed in most Modern Bibles.

The Italic Bible (AD157) "Italy, France and Great Britain were once provinces of the old Roman Empire. Latin was then the language of the common people. So the first translations of the Bible in these countries were made from the Greek Vulgate into Latin. One of the first of these Latin Bibles was for the Waldenses in northern Italy, translated not later than 157 AD and was known as the Italic Version. The renowned scholar Beza states that the Italic Church dates from 120 AD. Allix, an outstanding scholar, testifies that enemies had corrupted many manuscripts, while the Italic Church handed them down in their apostolic purity."

Source used:
1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three are One" (Trinity/Godhead)
Another King James Bible Believer

The KJB uses the Textus Receptus, the Syriac Peshitta and the Old Latin Bible (not the corrupt Latin Vulgate from Jerome), etcetera. The Modern Bibles use the corrupt Westcott and Hort Critical Text. They based their NT Greek text off of two corrupt manuscripts. In fact, think of one of the names of the manuscripts they used. It’s called VATICANus. Vatican is all about Roman Catholic Church. Westcott and Hort actually favored certain Catholic practices. So if you are Catholic, then that is the influence you are going to get with the Modern Bibles.

See page 21 on this PDF here for the 14 verses that favor the Catholic Church in a Modern Bible (NIV):

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

If you are against Catholicism, then naturally a Modern Bible is simply not the best choice. Granted, I use Modern Bibles to update the 1600’s English in the KJB, but Modern Bibles are simply not my final Word of authority because they clearly have been corrupted or tainted.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

"I strongly disagree that a Christian needs to be educated in Modern Textual Criticism because it can in some cases lead to unbelief. If you were to research how many Christians lose their faith at Bible college, you will discover it is approximately 70% of Christians who lose their faith. I do not believe it is the party atmosphere or worldly Christians who have influenced these Christian students to walk away from the faith.

They certainly don't lose their faith because of Text Criticism. They discover by direct investigation of the original language and cultural background that much of what they learned in their fundamentalist churches is uninformed rubbish.

It’s not rubbish because I was close to falling for such a deception. For a fraction of a half of a second I almost considered the words of a Textual Critic as being true in that the Bible has errors in it. If such was the case, then God’s Word would no longer be trustworthy to me because I cannot decide what is true and what is false in God’s Word. It would have led to my falling away from the faith if I believed his lies. This is why I can say that Bible students fall away from the faith when they learn of Textual Criticism that makes them doubt the Bible is trustworthy. For that’s the problem with Textual Criticism. In the world of Textual Criticism: The Bible is not trustworthy, and therefore you or the scholar needs to sit in the seat of God to determine what God said (to fill in the gap or errors in God’s Word). It’s a never ending quest of finding new manuscripts with the text constantly changing and altering and nothing is settled with what God really stated in His Word. Is this what we read in the Bible? Are we told to look to some more ancient language or are we told to piece together God’s Word in what He said? When I read the Bible, I see the exact opposite of that. I see God communicating primarily in the language they understood. I also see this:

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).​

So Paul tells the believers at Thessaloniki that they received the word from them (the apostles) as the VERY words of God. If we are to believe the Bible, and take a bible approach to this matter, then it makes sense that there must be some words some where on our planet by God that we can take as the VERY words of God (Which effectually works in those who believe).

BH: "I believe the real culprit is Textual Criticism in the fact that it makes them doubt that there is a perfect Bible that they can trust and rely upon (Knowing that God did preserve His Word today)."

As mentioned, there are 400,000 variant readings in NT manuscripts. So you need to ask yourself: "If God didn't care enough to preserve the original text of Scripture, why imagine that He would inspire an originally inerrant text, especially since the Bible never even claims to be inerrant.

Not true. The Bible does claim that it is inerrant or perfect. See Psalms 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5-6, and Psalms 119:140.
Also, you have to understand that your statement is faith based.
Your statement is based on having faith in the Religion of Modern Scholarship. What they say… you swallow up, hook, line, and sinker because it agrees with what you want to be true. However, the Textual Critics words or work has not been backed up by many evidences showing it to be divine in origin like the actual Bible itself.

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

Jesus said, Beware of the Scribes. The Scribes are those who TRAN-scribe the Law or the Scriptures. This would be the scholar of our day. Jesus said to beware of them and not to implicitly trust them. Jesus used the authority of Scripture to teach truth. Your approach to understanding the Bible is not actually based on the Bible and you don’t even realize that.

But, you say, the Greek text used for the KJV is inerrant. Use common sense. The KJV is based on the latest manuscripts. The more sleepy scribes copy these manuscripts, the more errors creep into the texts, which are then copied by misled later scribes, and so on. And it can be proven, for example, that, among their many errors, the KJV's Greek manuscripts conflate variant readings from earlier manuscripts rather than research which of the variant readings are correct.

It sounds like you are in too deep into Modern Scholarship whereby they have colored your thinking about the facts of how things really are. The first step you need to do if you are honest about seeking the truth is to do a side by side comparison between Modern Bibles vs. the KJB. The changes are clearly are for the worse and not for the better. This simply means that if this is so (Which I believe anyone will see if they are truly open to the truth), they will conclude that the so called evidences against the KJB by the Modern Scholarship side is just mere opinion and not anything that is truly verifiable by early church fathers, or trustworthy historical documents. One who is against the KJB is also coloring history to their own agenda, as well. The highlight of Bible history is the King James Bible. To not see this is merely to be blind to history itself.

Before the Bible was banned in public schools: The chosen Bible in public schools here in America was the KJB. Riots broke out certain cities in America by the Catholics wanting to put their Catholic bibles in public schools. Catholic bibles are in line with what Modern bibles say. Go figure.

Are you even aware that Modern Bibles today come from under the direct supervision of the Vatican?
Are you Catholic or do you favor Catholic practices?

"While Textual Criticism existed with a few before Westcott and Hort, it wasn't until these two men whereby Textual Criticism took off. For Westcott and Hort are the fathers who popularized the Modern Bible Translation movement with their Critical Revised Version. This is not good because Westcott and Hort held to heretical beliefs."

Their beliefs are not the issue. What is decisive is that they had access to earlier and more accurate manuscripts and demonstrated how, when, and why so many errors crept into the texts used by the KJV. Most experts concur with the principles they discovered for identifying original Greek readings. Quotations from NT early church fathers who wrote prior to the Greek NT manuscripts available to us refute readings that crept into the corrupt text used in the KJV.

Sorry. This argument is just silly. The beliefs of Modern Textual Critics has influenced Modern Bibles (They sprinkle their false unbelieving liberal statements in the Bible with footnotes in getting a person to doubt whole portions of Scripture or actual verses). Take for example the very manuscripts themselves are from Alexandria, Egypt. Alexandria Egypt is the origin of Arianism or Anti-Trinitarianism. Yet, Modern bibles remove the one and only clearest verse on the Trinity (i.e. 1 John 5:7).

Eusebius and Jerome make it clear that of the many manuscripts they know, very few include the bogus KJV ending of Mark 16:9-20. Indeed, one ancient Armenian manuscript of Mark even identifies the forger of this chapter, Aristo the Elder. The inauthenticity of 16:9-20 is confirmed by many stylistic differences from Mark's style. those of us who care enough about the purity of God's Word marvel that fundamentalists who have the highest view of biblical inspiration mindlessly use the translation with the most corrupt and late manuscripts.

Yes, I can see you have bought into the Textual Critics belief on Liberalism that gets you to doubt the actual Bible itself in certain places with the footnotes they put in their Modern bibles (Because you don’t believe the ending in Mark). However, if you were to read 1 Corinthians 15 several times slowly you would understand that you cannot be saved without believing in the resurrection. If this is the case (Which it is), and the gospel of Mark went out to an unbeliever… they really could not have the full revelation of the gospel message in that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He was risen the third day according to the saving gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. So imagine if you just receive the gospel of Mark back in the day. You would not have the gospel message or the resurrection. Christianity hangs on the resurrection. Take that down and it falls down like a house of cards. But I believe God’s Word by faith. The resurrection is true and it belongs in Mark just as it does in the other gospels. It would not be a gospel account without the resurrection.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Eusebius and Jerome make it clear that of the many manuscripts they know, very few include the bogus KJV ending of Mark 16:9-20. Indeed, one ancient Armenian manuscript of Mark even identifies the forger of this chapter, Aristo the Elder. The inauthenticity of 16:9-20 is confirmed by many stylistic differences from Mark's style. those of us who care enough about the purity of God's Word marvel that fundamentalists who have the highest view of biblical inspiration mindlessly use the translation with the most corrupt and late manuscripts.

Not true.

Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies Book 3, chapter 10.


4. HIPPOLYTUS (A.D. 190-227) quotes vv. 17-19 (Lagarde's ed., 1858, p. 74).

5. VINCENTIUS (A.D. 256) quoted two verses at the seventh Council of Carthage, held under CYPRIAN.

6. The ACTA PILATI (cent. 2) quotes vv. 15, 16, 17, 18 (Tischendorf's ed., 1852, pp. 243, 351).

7. The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS (cent. 3 or 4) quotes vv. 16, 17, 18.

8. EUSEBIUS (A.D. 325) discusses these verses, as quoted by MARINUS from a lost part of his History.

9. APHRAARTES (A.D. 337), a Syrian bishop, quoted vv. 16-18 in his first Homily (Dr. Wright's ed., 1869, i. p. 21).

10. AMBROSE (A.D. 374-97), Archbishop of Milan, freely quotes vv. 15 (four times), 16, 17, 18 (three times), and v. 20 (once).

11. CHRYSOSTOM (A.D. 400) refers to v. 9; and states that vv. 19, 20 are "the end of the Gospel".

12. JEROME (b. 331, d. 420) includes these twelve verses in his Latin translation, besides quoting vv. 9 and 14 in his other writings.

13. AUGUSTINE (fl. A.D. 395-430) more than quotes them. He discusses them as being the work of the Evangelist MARK, and says that they were publicly read in the churches.

14. NESTORIUS (cent. 5) quotes v. 20 and

15. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 430) accepts the quotation.

16. VICTOR OF ANTIOCH (A.D. 425) confutes the opinion of Eusebius, by referring to very many MSS. which he had seen, and so had satisfied himself that the last twelve verses were recorded in them.


Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) writes: "Also towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them., He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God." (Against Heresies 111:10:6).

Source:
Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have been down that road and it is wasted time. Once I came to understand how translations are made, I saw this issue in a completely different light. I no longer argue over translations. I never believed those who suggested that Satan or pagans created a translation. And I never believed that The KJV was the word of God.

If having all the correct doctrines or truth is important to you… then this issue or topic is not an a waste of time.

Rather, all translations attempt to relay the "words" of God to anyone interested to learn more about God's revealed word. But frankly, Jesus-followers are quick to admit that HE, Jesus Christ, is the Word of God.

Actually, there is a…

Symbiotic Relationship Between
The Living Word, & the Communicated Word:

1. Christ is good (John 10:11, John 10:14), and the word is good (1 Kings 2:42).
2. Christ is the truth (John 14:6), and the word is the truth (John 17:17).
3. Christ is called Faithful and True (Revelation 19:11), and the word is called faithful and true (Revelation 22:6).
4. Christ is pure (1 John 3:3), and the word is pure (Proverbs 30:5).
5. Christ is incorruptible (Acts of the Apostles 2:27), and the word is incorruptible (1 Peter 1:23).
6. Christ abides forever (John 12:34), and the word abides forever (1 Peter 1:23).
7. Christ’s name: “Jesus” is above all names (Which would include God’s name) (Philippians 2:9-10), and the word is above God’s name (Psalms 138:2).
8. Christ has flaming eyes of fire (Revelation 19:12), and the Word is like a fire (Jeremiah 23:29).
9. Christ can burn things like a fire (Matthew 3:12), and the word can burn things like a fire (Luke 24:32).
10. Christ can be eaten (John 6:57), and the word can be eaten (Jeremiah 15:16).
11. Christ is like the discovery of treasure (Matthew 13:44-46, cf. 2 Corinthians 4:7-10), and the word is like the discovery of treasure (Psalms 119:162).
12. Christ is the light (John 8:12), and the word is light (Psalms 119:105).
13. Christ is life (John 14:6, 1 John 5:12), and the word is life (John 6:63).
14. Christ is the living bread (John 6:51), and the word is the living bread (Matthew 4:4).
15. Christ is eternal life (Romans 6:23, 1 Timothy 6:16, 1 John 5:20) and the word is eternal life (John 6:68) (cf. Matthew 24:35, John 6:63).
16. Christ quickens (makes alive) (John 5:21), and the word quickens (makes alive) (Psalms 119:50).
17. It is by Christ which makes the gospel possible (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), and it is by the word which makes the gospel possible (1 Peter 1:25).
18. Christ is near to men (Acts of the Apostles 17:27) (Revelation 3:20) (Psalms 145:18), and the word is near to men (Romans 10:8).
19. Christ discerns the heart (Matthew 9:4, Luke 9:47), and the word discerns the heart (Hebrews 4:12).
20. Christ can get men through a storm (Mark 4:35-41), and the word can get men through a storm (Matthew 7:24-25).
21. Christ sanctifies (John 17:19), and the word sanctifies (John 17:17).
22. A person can stumble over Christ (Romans 9:33, 1 Peter 2:5-8), and a person can stumble over the word (1 Peter 2:8).
23. Christ will judge men (John 5:22), and the word will judge men (John 12:48).
24. Christ’s bones were never broken (John 19:36 cf. Psalms 34:20), and the word is never broken (John 10:35).
25. Believers are told to seek after Christ (Matthew 28:5, Mark 16:6), and believers are told to seek after the word (Isaiah 34:16).
26. Christ is our hope (1 Thessalonians 1:3, Colossians 1:27, 1 Timothy 1:1), and the word is our hope (Psalms 130:5).
27. Believers are to have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16), and believers are to meditate (use their mind) upon the word (Psalms 119:148, 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV).
28. Christ is to be heard and obeyed (Matthew 7:24), and the word is to be heard and obeyed (James 1:22).
29. The love of God is within Christ (Romans 8:39), and keeping the word places the love of God within us (1 John 2:5) (Also see John 14:23).
30. Christ is the way to the living waters, which is the Holy Spirit (John 7:37-39), and the washing of the water of the word (Ephesians 5:25-27) (which is obedience to God) is the way to having the Spirit (Acts of the Apostles 5:32).
31. Christ is like the foundation that is a part of a house (1 Corinthians 3:9, 1 Corinthians 3:11), and He is like a rock (1 Corinthians 10:4), and the obeying the word is like a house built upon the rock (Matthew 7:24).
32. Believers are to follow after the steps of Christ (1 Peter 2:21), and believers are to order their steps in the word (Psalms 119:133).
33. Christ breathed the Spirit upon his faithful chosen (John 20:22), and the word is “inspired by God” (i.e. God breathed) for the benefit of his faithful chosen (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
34. Christ is the way to having the fruits of righteousness (Philippians 1:11), and the word is the way to being instructed in righteousness so to be perfect unto all good works (fruits) (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
35. Christ can abide in us (John 15:4-7) (Ephesians 3:17) (Philippians 4:13), and the word can abide in us (John 15:7, Psalms 119:11).
36. Christ dwells in our hearts (Ephesians 3:17), and the word dwells in our hearts (Colossians 3:16).
37. Believers can be hidden in Christ (Colossians 3:3), and the word can be hidden in believers (Psalms 119:11).
38. Christ is always with us (Matthew 28:20), and the word is always with us (Psalms 119:98).
39. Christ can make our joy full (John 15:11), and the word can make our joy full (1 John 1:4).
40. Believers’ hearts rejoice with Christ (John 16:22), and believers’ hearts rejoice with the word (Jeremiah 15:16).

..41. Christ is called a seed (Galatians 3:16), and the word is called a seed (1 Peter 1:23, Luke 8:11) (Note: See here for further details).


The communicated word of God that we have today is the Bible.

“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11).​

Jesus (the Living Word) was sent by the commandment (mouth) of the Father. Jesus said and did everything the Father told Him to do (John 12:49) (John 14:31).

What is interesting is that the Living Word accomplished that which the Father commanded Him to do and to prosper (accomplish) that thing He sent to do (i.e. Jesus suffered on the cross, and said, “It is finished” and died for man’s sins). Jesus was risen three days later, and ascended to the Father. God’s Word (the living Word) did not return void by whom the Father sent.

The communicated Word can also be sent out and not return void, as well. For many have believed and have stayed faithful to what God’s Word says.

In the creation: The Word made flesh (John 1:1, John 1:14) (i.e. Christ) created everything. In the beginning God spoke words to bring forth the creation in six days (Genesis 1:1-31).

So in the beginning was the Living Word, and the communicated Word.

In the end of this sinful world: Christ will return (Revelation 19:11-21) and a sharp sword will proceed from His mouth. This sword could be the “sword of the Spirit,” (Which is the Word of God) or it could be symbolic of such (Ephesians 6:17).

So in the end there will be the Living Word, and the communicated Word.

For at Christ’s return: His name is called The “Word of God.” (Revelation 19:13) (Living Word).

On His thigh, and vesture is a name written (words) “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” (Communicated Word).

Jesus was beaten to a pulp and crucified on a tree.

The Word we have today (the Bible) is a result of pulp made from a tree.

Jesus was the Word made flesh (covered in skin).

The Word we have today (the Bible) is popular to be available covered in skin (leather).

Words on the page hang on this tree (paper) (the Bible),
just like the Living Word hung on a tree (the cross).

 

[Berserk]

Not true. The Bible does claim that it is inerrant or perfect. See Psalms 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5-6, and Psalms 119:140.
Psalm 12:6-7 refers to the purity of God's promises, not the OT as we know it. Even in Jesus' day the OT canon was not closed.
Proverbs 30:5-6 only says, "Every word of God proves true," but that says nothing about biblical stories and words that don't directly include what God says. In any case, Proverbs isn't even referring to an established canon as we know it.

Also, you have to understand that your statement is faith based.
Nope! It's based on what the Greek of the NT Texts that claim inspiration mean and don't mean and the fact that these texts refer only to the OT.
The NT can't comment on its own inspiration because it takes centuries before disputes about the limits of the canon are settled. For example, 1 Clement is a first-century epistle that is included is some early NT canons and even claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. But of course the Catholic church eventually decides to reject its canonicity.

Your claims lack integrity because you haven't read a rigorous modern book on Text Criticism that lays out the objective criteria for accepting and rejecting various specific biblical texts and words and lays out the actual criteria by which these texts are assessed for originality.

 

[n2thelight]

Just gonna drop this

Omissions in Modern Versions
King James Bible Omissions

KJV - Letter to the Reader
this.htm

King James Bible Facts
Fighting Back! A Handy Reference Guide For King James Bible Believers by James Melston www.av1611.org

History of King James (KJV)
King James I of England (VI of Scotland) Page

 

[DavidB]

“[1 John]5:7; This verse has not been found in Greek in any manuscript in or out of the New Testament earlier than the thirteenth century. It does not appear in any Greek manuscript of I John before the fifteenth century, when one cursive has it; one from the sixteenth also contains the reading. These are the only Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in which it has ever been found. But it occurs in no ancient Greek manuscript of Greek Christian writers or any of the oriental versions. its chief support is in two Old Latin manuscripts of the sixth and eighth centuries and in some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, but not the oldest ones. Erasmus did not include it in his first edition to the New Testament in Greek (1516) nor in his second (1519). When criticized for the omission, he rashly said that if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript containing the passage he would insert it, and the sixteenth century Codex Mantifortianus containing it was brought to his attention. He felt obliged to include the reading in his third edition (1525). From Tyndale the verse found its way into the King James Version. It is universally discredited by Greek scholars and editors of the Greek text of the New Testament."

The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament

 

[DavidB]

"The Comma Joanneum, 5:7-8 of the Vg. is missing in all Gk MSS except four later MSS and in the Oriental versions. It is quoted by no Church father before Priscillian(380). There is no doubt that it is a gloss on the preceding lines, probably added in Africa or the Iberian peninsula."
John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible


"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early trinitarian controversies. No repectable Greek MS contians it. Appearing first in a late 4th cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."
Peake's Commentary on the Bible


"We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim." F.H.A.Scrivener -A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament 1883 third ed., p. 654.

 

[DavidB]

Why does the KJV omit “nor the son” in Matt 24:36?

KJV - “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only

RSV - “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

 

[DavidB]

Interesting that Bible Highlighter calls 1John 5:7: “the one and only clearest verse on the Trinity.”

That says a lot.