Thoughts about using a KJV update?

[Grailhunter]

Scriptural translation is fun and it gives you confidence.
I know a lady that started out researching her ancestry and now she does it as a hobby for others. Her husband and I hang out for baseball games and such. She would have a computer and printer on a large table with paperwork and ledgers for documenting ancestry all over it. And she would show me how she was doing all that and the things to consider.

And I was thinking that this lady would have no problems translating scriptures if she can do this.
People think you have to be a genius and walk on water to translate scriptures....that is not true. It is not that hard.
Now a days you can get books that have photo copies of the oldest manuscripts and there are tools that can help you. And like I said it is fun.

There are people here on this forum that have read the Bible and have knowledge of scriptures. Why not take the next level.
You need the photo copies or a site that will give you the "raw scriptures" You will learn to tell the difference. And what you are going to see in the biblical languages is that the words do not always follow the same order as English grammar.

In doing this you learn something about ancient languages. And you will see that it is correct to translate some scriptures from different perspectives and you will see what the translators were doing. Still not hard, let me explain.

I was watch people on the form discussing Genesis 3:16, Eve's curse as it where.

To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” NASB

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. KJV

To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Now there is a lot to discuss in this verse, but they were discussing multiply, or as many and I think severe. So they were discussing what this Hebrew word means. But they were not digging deep enough.

One of the things you can learn about ancient languages is in this verse. The actual Hebrew word that is translated multiply, the root word means "locust" in Hebrew. The Hebrews are going to know how multiply, increase, and be many could relate to locust and their harmful effects.

So in English it is not incorrect to translate the scripture as ether multiply or increase or many.
Looking at the manuscripts can teach you so many things about the culture. And it is the closest you will be to the Word of God.

 

[OzSpen]

First, older does not automatically mean something is better. For example: If there was a gnostic manuscript teaching a false religion before the birth of Christ, it would not be more accurate spiritually just because it is older than any later writings of New Testament Scripture. So the whole... “older is better” claim is not a good argument. Second, David H Sorenson provides compelling evidence that the principal manuscripts, foundational to virtually all modern Bible versions—Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus—are not ancient. They, in fact, are of recent origin. Sorenson's book presents powerful evidence that Codex Sinaiticus was actually produced in 1840 and that Codex Vaticanus is no older than the medieval era, with modifications likely made in the 19th century. I managed to get a copy of it before Amazon did not provide any more stock of the book. If you can pick it up, it's definitely an eye opener. Three, the evidence that I presented in my posts to you should be reason enough to abandon your faith in Modern bibles instead of blindly clinging to the words of scholars who are obviously lying to you that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are older and better. I presented two posts with 9 doctrines that are altered (for the worse and not for the better) in Modern Bibles by way of comparison to the KJB. My third post proves that all your Modern Bibles today that are based on the Nestle and Aland Greek New Testament text was supervised by the Vatican and one of its editors is a Catholic cardinal. If you need further proof that the Modern Bibles have been corrupted by Rome, you can check out page 21 on the following PDF document of the 14 changes in Modern Bibles that favor the Roman Catholic Church.

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

So in conclusion: Yes, I did provide reasons that the scholars you are listening to are simply lying to you about the age of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. My posts should have made this evident that they are simply lying.

BH,

Closer to the autographa is a good argument as it gives less opportunity for errors to creep into the MSS. I do not blindly follow scholarship. Could it be you are ignoring the evidence from the Alexandrian texts being earlier and more reliable?

Trusting Erasmus and the Textus Receptus of 1516 does not follow sound principles of scholarship.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

My NKJV, still uses the measurements and weights in old English, I wouldn't mind seeing things like that updated in an Updated KJV.

Josho,

The NKJV is still based on Erasmus's Textus Receptus of 1516.

Oz

 

[Bible Highlighter]

BH,

Closer to the autographa is a good argument as it gives less opportunity for errors to creep into the MSS. I do not blindly follow scholarship. Could it be you are ignoring the evidence from the Alexandrian texts being earlier and more reliable?

Trusting Erasmus and the Textus Receptus of 1516 does not follow sound principles of scholarship.

Oz

Faith vs. Modern Bible Versions by David Cloud is an exhaustive 775 page book on the matter. He used to be against KJB Only. While David Cloud is not the person who convinced me of the truth on this topic, I would consider David Cloud to be an authority on the topic because he has read hundreds of books on the subject and he has read many books from both sides of the argument. David Cloud claims to know the Hebrew and Greek and he believes it aligns with the King James Bible (Just as I am sure the translators of the KJB thought). David Cloud goes into the nuances of the different translating methods of the KJB vs. the Modern Bibles. For me: It’s not so much about science or the method (although I can see it playing a factor), I am more of a Bible guy. Where is your biblical case for a defense of Modern Bibles or looking to the Originals Only (With no perfect Word)? You will not find such a biblical position in the Bible. That’s where your belief on this matter falls flat. All things spiritually that we believe must be supported by the Bible. The Bible tells me that the words of the Lord are pure words and that they would be preserved forever (Psalms 12:6-7). The Bible says EVERY word of God is pure (Proverbs 30:5). Jesus says heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away (Matthew 24:35). Jesus cared about the details of His Word not passing away because not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law until all shall be fulfilled (Matthew 5:18). So I believe Jesus that the details of His Word would not pass away. Modern Versions actually take away the words of Jesus (Which is for the worse and not for the better). So your thinking totally in buying into the scholarly argument (Which is a flawed argument) and your not thinking about this topic from a biblical perspective. I don’t see the Originals Only (and no perfect Word exists) as a position found anywhere in the Holy Bible. This is where your belief is bankrupt. My faith does not stand in the wisdom of men, but it stands on God’s Word. That is the difference between us (involving this topic).

I also demonstrated that all Modern Bibles come from under the influence of the Vatican. So they cannot be endorsed fully by God (Although I am sure GOD can use them). I also have shown 9 doctrines that are changed for the worse and not for the better (of which you ignored). I also demonstrated by way of a link to a PDF how there are 14 changes in Scripture in Modern Bibles that favor the Catholic Church, as well. All this is all the necessary evidence I need that you ignore. You keep repeating your scholar position and have not really addressed these points. No doubt I would not be surprised that you would try to explain away these points because you look at this topic from the scholar position and not from a biblical one. I am open to what the Bible says, and not what the scholar says. Originals Onlyism is solely a scholarly based argument and not a biblical one.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

BH,

Closer to the autographa is a good argument as it gives less opportunity for errors to creep into the MSS. I do not blindly follow scholarship. Could it be you are ignoring the evidence from the Alexandrian texts being earlier and more reliable?

Trusting Erasmus and the Textus Receptus of 1516 does not follow sound principles of scholarship.

Oz

If we are to follow the consistency of God and how He operates involving Scripture, we must conclude that God is interested in the preservation of His Words via by Scripture. Biblical proof?

Jeremiah 36:27-32
“Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying, Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned. And thou shalt say to Jehoiakim king of Judah, Thus saith the LORD; Thou hast burned this roll, saying, Why hast thou written therein, saying, The king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast? Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost. And I will punish him and his seed and his servants for their iniquity; and I will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and upon the men of Judah, all the evil that I have pronounced against them; but they hearkened not. Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.”

What is interesting here is that after the King burned the scroll of the LORD, not only did God tell Jeremiah to make another roll (scroll, i.e. Scripture), we are told in verse 32 that there were many like added words added to them, as well. Meaning, it was updated and not a perfect copy of the original. The original no longer existed but a copy was made to replace it with updated words. Now, if you are to believe these words in your Bible involving this story and you are to believe GOD is consistent in the way He behaves, then we must conclude God did the same thing again in the future. I believe He did this with the King James Bible. Why? The KJB has the marks of the divine upon it and it is superior in doctrine and truth compared to Modern Bibles. The KJB came under Catholic opposition with Guy Fawkes wanting to kill King James and his translation with a super bomb. For it is no secret that even back then that Catholics did not want the common man to have the Scriptures in their own hands. But Modern Bibles? Where were they at during this time in influencing men? It did not exist. Hundreds of years later two men named Westcott and Hort had decided to revise the established Word of God for hundreds of years with their own New Testament Greek text based off two highly questionable manuscripts. One manuscript (Sinaiticus was found in an Orthodox trash can) and another manuscript (Vaticanus was found in a Catholic vault). Their origins alone should make you throw them out (Unless you are Catholic or Orthodox). Erasmus was not exactly a good Catholic and he did not believe various practices of the Catholic Church. In the end, he died among his Protestant friends and was labeled as basically and enemy of the Catholic Church (in the end). In other words, Erasmus was not working under the authority of the Vatican or the big guys. He was a rogue who wanted to get the Scriptures into the hands of the common man (Which the Catholic Church did not want to happen). Of course you should know this if you knew your Bible history. I would highly recommend watching Bridges to Babylon on YouTube. It will give you the breakdown on what happened when the Revisers came later on to the scene.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Oy vey! The King James Bible (and all English Bibles) are -- ready -- translations. They are not the originals; they are the work of fallible men. Additionally, The King James Bible was created for one reason only -- are you ready for it? -- to satisfy King James, a secular king. It is not the word(s) of God.

Read Jeremiah 36:27-32.

Jeremiah 36:27-32
“Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying, Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned. And thou shalt say to Jehoiakim king of Judah, Thus saith the LORD; Thou hast burned this roll, saying, Why hast thou written therein, saying, The king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast? Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost. And I will punish him and his seed and his servants for their iniquity; and I will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and upon the men of Judah, all the evil that I have pronounced against them; but they hearkened not. Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words.”

We learn that when the originals were destroyed, God did not let His Word pass away in parts with the sands of time, but He had Jeremiah re-write the roll (scroll, i.e. Scripture) to preserve His Word. So your position is not biblical.

 

[Grailhunter]

Faith vs. Modern Bible Versions by David Cloud is an exhaustive 775 page book on the matter. He used to be against KJB Only. While David Cloud is not the person who convinced me of the truth on this topic, I would consider David Cloud to be an authority on the topic because he has read hundreds of books on the subject and he has read many books from both sides of the argument. David Cloud claims to know the Hebrew and Greek and he believes it aligns with the King James Bible (Just as I am sure the translators of the KJB thought). David Cloud goes into the nuances of the different translating methods of the KJB vs. the Modern Bibles. For me: It’s not so much about science or the method (although I can see it playing a factor), I am more of a Bible guy. Where is your biblical case for a defense of Modern Bibles or looking to the Originals Only (With no perfect Word)? You will not find such a biblical position in the Bible. That’s where your belief on this matter falls flat. All things spiritually that we believe must be supported by the Bible. The Bible tells me that the words of the Lord are pure words and that they would be preserved forever (Psalms 12:6-7). The Bible says EVERY word of God is pure (Proverbs 30:5). Jesus says heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away (Matthew 24:35). Jesus cared about the details of His Word not passing away because not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law until all shall be fulfilled (Matthew 5:18). So I believe Jesus that the details of His Word would not pass away. Modern Versions actually take away the words of Jesus (Which is for the worse and not for the better). So your thinking totally in buying into the scholarly argument (Which is a flawed argument) and your not thinking about this topic from a biblical perspective. I don’t see the Originals Only (and no perfect Word exists) as a position found anywhere in the Holy Bible. This is where your belief is bankrupt. My faith does not stand in the wisdom of men, but it stands on God’s Word. That is the difference between us (involving this topic).

I also demonstrated that all Modern Bibles come from under the influence of the Vatican. So they cannot be endorsed fully by God (Although I am sure GOD can use them). I also have shown 9 doctrines that are changed for the worse and not for the better (of which you ignored). I also demonstrated by way of a link to a PDF how there are 14 changes in Scripture in Modern Bibles that favor the Catholic Church, as well. All this is all the necessary evidence I need that you ignore. You keep repeating your scholar position and have not really addressed these points. No doubt I would not be surprised that you would try to explain away these points because you look at this topic from the scholar position and not from a biblical one. I am open to what the Bible says, and not what the scholar says. Originals Onlyism is solely a scholarly based argument and not a biblical one.

I am not going to agree that all modern Bibles are influenced by the Vatican.

So they cannot be endorsed fully by God Yesterday Fox News press conference, Christ arrives in Fox News studios to personally indorse the NASB Bible! Says it is the best there is! Says to throw away the King James Bibles!
Naaaa, that stuff does not happen.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you have a pop up indicator for born again?
Again the cult people are going to come up and ask, "Are you really born again?" "How do you know?" "Are you really lead by the Holy Spirit? How do you know?" or "How do you know you are saved?"

You have failed two times already in providing tactics exclusive to cults and I showed you that these things exist in Scripture. This would be a third time. Seeing you view the Bible as some kind of idol if we follow it too seriously (or if we see it as the only way we know God and can follow Him), I am not surprised that you don't know all of what it says. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Many today falsely think visions or dreams or some voice in their head could be the word of God. They don't realize that Revelation was the last book to be added to Bible and that no more words should be added to Revelation.

Anyways, asking ourselves questions on whether we are born again and if we are truly being led by the Holy Spirit or the Lord Jesus Christ are good questions to ask ourselves because many people are deceived thinking they are born again and being led by God when they are not. This is in line with Scripture.

2 Corinthians 13:5 says:
“Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?”

The true way of knowing if one is born again spiritually is by examining Scripture and checking to see if our born again experience with GOD lines up with what the Bible says. Jesus says you cannot enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). So no person can be saved initially without being born again. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” This verse says that if we are IN Christ we are a new creature (Suggesting we are a new creation, i.e. born again). Ephesians 3:17 says, “so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love,” This verse says that Christ can dwell in our hearts by faith. It's through faith that Christ can dwell in my heart (literally). Meaning, the spirit of Christ (or the second person of the Godhead or Trinity) can dwell in my heart if I believe and trust in Him as my Savior by faith.

Anyway, people believe different things about baptism. Some believe it has no spiritual connection. That it is merely a public display of Christian obedience. Same thing goes for the Bread and Wine ritual and foot washing. I do not recommend being baptized by these people.

I hold to the same view as poster LoveofTruth on this forum. We both came to the same conclusion that water baptism was something the early church did as a part of the Jewish tradition of John the Baptist under the Old Covenant, and it was to be replaced by Spirit baptism (the born again experience) when a person first genuinely accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior according to God's Word (with them having a right heart with God). It took time for the early church to figure this out.

To learn more check this out here:

What is the “one baptism” mentioned in Ephesians 4:5? (I have an answer, but I would like input).

(Continued in next post):

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am ordained and at Bible Camp I would baptize adults and children. And this is how it went. I would explain to them that during the Baptism, they would die in Christ. The person that went down in the water would not be the spiritual person that came up. And we would discuss John the Baptist and how the Bible says that He was baptising for the remission of sins. And I would explain the difference between that Baptism and their baptism. Both removed sins. But when you are born of water and of the Spirit it is a new birth spiritually and nothing that you did before would be remembered by God. Clean slate.

So then they would read the Apostles Creed out loud and I would Baptize them in the river or lake in the name of Yahweh, Yeshua, and the Holy Spirit.

Ananias accepted the gospel and had been water baptised among others but the Holy Spirit did not come upon none of them yet. So two apostles were sent to resolve this matter. So it turned out that Ananias' heart was not right with God. So his receiving of the gospel, and his water baptism did not do anything for him because his heart was still not right with God. So I believe sometimes people go through the motions to receive Christ for the wrong reasons, and they are not really wanting to surrender their life to GOD with a broken heart.

For I don't believe all churches who baptize have their own hearts right with GOD themselves because they are doing things that are not in line with God's will. They like the idea of GOD but they are not willing to play ball entirely on God's terms. They prefer to follow a god of their own imagining (Instead of following the Bible).

LOL The one and only....born again by water and spirit is baptism.

I was changed by GOD spiritually long before I was water baptized.
Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was water baptized.

Well it is not for you to say they are not saved.....more cult talk. Believe my way or you are not saved....! If they had a hand book that would be in there.

So a person can be saved without Jesus?
A person cannot know of Jesus without the Bible.
The Bible also warns against accepting another Jesus. You would not know that unless the Bible told you this.
When I say that a person is born again by water... I am saying that they had a spiritual experience with the Word (the Holy Bible) and they then consider that book to be their primary guide for all matters of faith and practice. They will not speak against the Bible and call it an idol if we take it too seriously in following what it says, etcetera.
Now, I am not saying that they must be KJB Only to be saved. I am saying that the Christian who is born of water (i.e. by the Scriptures) will know that the Bible is the sole or primary guiding factor of their life and they will not speak against the Bible in what it says.

It looks like you honor the book and give lip service to God. The way you wording this is that the average Christians or all other Christians do not have as much faith as you.

There is no possible way for you to know my heart and walk with GOD unless you examined it with Scripture. So this is just a baseless attack or an ad hominem to uplift your position of what you believe is true (Which I believe is contrary to God's Word).

But one cannot speak against the faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). You say there are errors in the Bible, and you appear to mock various verses like Luke 14:26 that says “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,” etcetera (as if to imply that they are not true because you approach them with a carnal understanding).

Again is there a pop up indicator for this or a gauge? Are you the only one qualified to determine that?

No. The Bible is that gauge or indicator. The Scripture of truth (Daniel 10:21).

Oh my, are you sure you are not a cult leader? The scriptures are truth....but even the manuscripts have errors and that is how you know they have not been tampered with...it was a big temptation for copiers to correct manuscripts....the leaven in the scriptures must remain. You can deny the errors but that is fantasy, not faith. God is real, you do not have to fantasize to have faith.

No. You don't believe the Scripture is truth because they have errors in them. A writing that has errors in it cannot be called truth. Sure, some stuff may be true, but it cannot be entirely true or called true.

Any time you are dealing with scriptures you should be praying...But try looking at the actual scriptures. If you do not understand a Bible verse(s) go to the manuscripts, go to source. You can learn a lot from that.

I believe I suggested for you to pray when you read the Scriptures because you implied that certain verses in the Bible are problematic like Luke 14:26. Also, going to the source? Where is that in the Bible? Where do we see the prophets or the apostles telling us to go back to the original languages to understand His Word? Please show me the chapter and verse please.

 

[ChristisGod]

Doesn't matter what translation used, someone will find something wrong with it. There is no such thing as the perfect translation. The only way to find the perfect version of Scripture is to go right back to the originals, but they are lost through the passage of time. So our earliest Greek copy is from the 4th Century.

Those who maintain that the "perfect" Scriptures replace the supernatural gifts of the Spirit are on a rotten foundation because the only "perfect" ones are the originals, penned by the actual writers themselves. All our copies of Scripture are translations and therefore are imperfect. So much for "perfection" of written Scripture.

That is the nature of deception and false doctrine. It depends on out of context half-verses and faulty logic.

Yes its the original autographs that were inspired. Plus the KJV is a translation from the latin vulgate. it was a rewriting of the " great bible" of 1539 which came from the latin vulgate from the 380's.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am not going to agree that all modern Bibles are influenced by the Vatican.

So they cannot be endorsed fully by God Yesterday Fox News press conference, Christ arrives in Fox News studios to personally indorse the NASB Bible! Says it is the best there is! Says to throw away the King James Bibles!
Naaaa, that stuff does not happen.

It says right in the Nestle and Aland 27th edition text that it was supervised by the Vatican. Most of all your English Modern Bibles today are based on the Nestle and Aland of which you can check with the version itself. If you go to Wikipedia, you can see that a Catholic cardinal was an editor on the Nestle and Aland text. This is not falsified information by any means. Wikipedia has nothing to gain by lying on these points. It's just a website that reports general information about things. In fact, it can be verified by other sources. So yes. Modern bibles are influenced by the Vatican. It's a fact that is undeniable. Some in your camp will agree with me and they simply don't care.

 

[Grailhunter]

Seeing you view the Bible as some kind of idol if we follow it too seriously

I do not see the Bible as an idol, it is your reverence toward it.

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God

That true but you are going to hear some of the word of man in the KJV.

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith

Examine ourselves....but we need no exams from you.

There are no hoops I have to jump through to be born again.

What are hoops?

I hold to the same view as poster LoveofTruth on this forum. We both came to the same conclusion that water baptism was something the early church did as a part of the Jewish tradition of John the Baptist under the Old Covenant, and it was to be replaced by Spirit baptism (the born again experience) when a person first genuinely accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior according to God's Word (with them having a right heart with God). It took time for the early church to figure this out.

As I said, there are different views regarding baptism. Let me know how it turns out for you.

For I don't believe all churches who baptize have their own hearts right with GOD themselves because they are doing things that are not in line with God's will. They like the idea of GOD but they are not willing to play ball entirely on God's terms. They prefer to follow a god of their own imagining (Instead of following the Bible).

I fellowship with different denominations so I go to different churches. Usually my vacations include churches. I have never seen a perfect church and I have never seen a bad church. I had an interesting experience in Virginia Beach....LOL I will just say if you pull up into a church parking lot full of Rolls Royce, Bentleys, Lamborghinis, and Cadillacs, enjoy the tour but keep going.

So a person can be saved without Jesus?

I did not say that....careful. Would you like me to type that you love Satan on this forum.

A person cannot know of Jesus without the Bible.

This is an old topic.
First off, many many people were saved before there was a Bible. The first Bibles were the 50 Bibles of Constantine...circa around 350 AD. Then 1200 years of Catholic Bibles that people did not get to read.
Today in communist countries Christian groups flourish with very few Bibles.

The Bible also warns against accepting another Jesus. You would not know that unless the Bible told you this.
When I say that a person is born again by water... I am saying that they had a spiritual experience with the Word (the Holy Bible) and they then consider that book to be their primary guide for all matters of faith and practice. They will not speak against the Bible and call it an idol if we take it too seriously in following what it says, etcetera.

You see...this is what I mean about the word of man setting the criteria.

There is no possible way for you to know my heart and walk with GOD

All I know about you is what you say.

No. You don't believe the Scripture is truth because they have errors in them. A writing that has errors in it cannot be called truth. Sure, some stuff may be true, but it cannot be entirely true or called true.

That is your problem is that you are looking for perfection in this world....not going to happen. So there appears to be a fantasy aspect to your faith.

I believe I suggested for you to pray when you read the Scriptures because you implied that certain verses in the Bible are problematic like

I am the one that said that.

Also, going to the source? Where is that in the Bible?

Christ and the Apostles said it before there was a Bible. The Hebrew Bible was in scrolls. The New Testament was in progress at various stages. And the Apostle's are going to be big on the Word of God....before the Bible.

Where do we see the prophets or the apostles telling us to go back to the original languages to understand His Word?

They are writing in the original languages...English was not around yet but they were not telling people to find other languages to read.

It says right in the Nestle and Aland 27th edition text that it was supervised by the Vatican.

I have never seen the Nestle and Aland editions and don't care.

 

[Jim B]

There is a very interesting, well-written book about the KJV, entitled "The Book of Books" by Melvyn Bragg. Even though he clearly loves the KJV, the book clearly says (p.41) "The Geneva Bible, the most popular of all the Bibles published at that time, had irritated James in Edinburgh where he had to bite his tongue. His chief objection to the Geneva Bible was not the translation of the Scriptures but the marginal notes, which he saw as 'untrue, seditious, and savouring too much of a dangerous and traitorious conceits ... James grasped what many ideologues and rulers and tyrants grasped -- that authority was secured by the enforcement of detail. Just as Marxists, Leninists, and Maoists argued for months on apparently hair-splitting different interpretations of their own sacred books, so here James saw the Bible as his outward and visible authority. It would be his Bible. No notes ... The Scriptures would serve the state and only through the King of the state would they serve God."

The King James Bible is and was a political tool, justifying the rule and authority of a secular king instead of the King of Kings: God.

1 Timothy 6:13-16, "I charge you before God who gives life to all things and Christ Jesus who made his good confession before Pontius Pilate, to obey this command without fault or failure until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ —whose appearing the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, will reveal at the right time. He alone possesses immortality and lives in unapproachable light, whom no human has ever seen or is able to see. To him be honor and eternal power! Amen." NET

 

[Jim B]

Any person seeking for the truth will simply look at the verses and see a wrong pattern going on that favors the Catholic Church. As I stated before, the Nestle and Aland New Testament Greek text (of which all Modern English bibles today are based on) was under the supervision of the Vatican and had a Catholic cardinal as one of the editors. I have provided irrefutable proof of this.

As for the NIV: Even Original Onlyists I have talked will admit it is a bad translation and that we should stop bringing it up. So not everyone even in your own camp would agree with your blind liking of the NIV. Granted, again, I don’t have a problem with a person reading a Modern Bible, they just should not make it their final Word of authority. Why? Because it will not be the same NIV in a few years from now. It is never settled. I have also shown that the NIV has corrupt doctrines, as well.

The KJV is a poor translation, produced to satisfy the desires of a secular King to justify His rule.

Your argument about satisfying the Catholic denomination is nonsense. Your "proof" is anything but!

The best Bible is the one that "speaks" most clearly and the one that the reader understands. That rules out a 411-year-old translation that is easily misunderstood because it communicates in a dead language. It is full of errors because a) it was based on a limited bunch of source documents and b) intentionally modified previous English (and other language) translations to conform to King James' doctrine, formulated to glorify himself. He clearly wanted Protestant beliefs to be what he said that they should be, to justify his ruling power.

As far as the NIV modification goes, the KJV has been modified a number of times; very few people can read the olde Englyshe of 1611. Every translation should be updated as new sources are discovered, better understanding of the ancient languages and cultures is gained, and present-day societies change. The idea is not to make the Bible sound "holy" by using archaic, confusing language, but to communicate God's message to people, regardless of their time and place.

Finally, your phrase "blind liking" is "the pot calling the kettle black". While I like the NIV, my favorite translation is the NET. Unlike you, I am flexible in my thinking and accept the work of translators to produce the best and most accurate Bible.

Clearly you do have a problem with a person reading a Modern Bible because you are deluded to think that only one translation is the Word of God.

As for your absurd claim that the NIV has "corrupt doctrines", what are they?

Finally, while you're reading the unsupported second part of Romans 8:1 that was added in the KJV, say hello to your unicorn!

 

[Michiah-Imla]

The KJV is a poor translation

A poor translation doesn’t stick around for over 400 years and remain contemporaneously relevant to this day.

It is an excellent translation!

Modern versions are the ones that are poor!

Poor in textual base.

Poor in translation philosophy.

Poor in quality.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

is full of errors because a) it was based on a limited bunch of source documents and

while you're reading the unsupported second part of Romans 8:1 that was added in the KJV

What if they found another manuscript with even shorter readings? there’s goes more of your Bible being deleted!

Hey, the Devil can just keep letting men find more ancient manuscripts with missing verses little by little over time until the Bible gets so much shorter and irrelevant so that he can have free reign to devour all the intellectuals who fall for his crafty tricks.

After all, we all know it’s impossible for scribes to leave out scriptures: Adding to scripture is the default error of these careless scribes… [eyes rolling]

 

[Jim B]

For the record, I have no objection to people reading the KJV and saying it is their favorite. But to claim that it is the only pure English translation is unsupported nonsense. As I have written previously, it is unfortunately often retranslated on the fly into modern English -- "so what this is saying" -- so that people can invent their own doctrines. The best translation is the one that is most clearly understood by the reader. That means through our "cultural lens", what God is intending us to understand in the modern age. None of us live in 17th Century England, ruled by a monarch who clearly wanted the Bible to justify him and what he said was Christianity. He had an ulterior motive in commissioning the translation that bears his name and it makes me sad that people don't understand that. He was a secular ruler with political aims, but only Christ is king.

 

[Jim B]

A poor translation doesn’t stick around for over 400 years and remain contemporaneously relevant to this day.

It is an excellent translation!

Modern versions are the ones that are poor!

Poor in textual base.

Poor in translation philosophy.

Poor in quality.

It's simply your opinion, not fact. The KJV has been around for a long time primarily because of its beautiful (and archaic) language. Saying it is
contemporaneously relevant to this day and is an excellent translation is simply your personal opinion.

Your clear bias is shown when you make foolish, unsupported statements like modern versions are the ones that are poor: poor in textual base, poor in translation philosophy, and poor in quality.

Read my "signature" below...

 

[Jim B]

What if they found another manuscript with even shorter readings? there’s goes more of your Bible being deleted!

Hey, the Devil can just keep letting men find more ancient manuscripts with missing verses little by little over time until the Bible gets so much shorter and irrelevant so that he can have free reign to devour all the intellectuals who fall for his crafty tricks.

After all, we all know it’s impossible for scribes to leave out scriptures: Adding to scripture is the default error of these careless scribes… [eyes rolling]

You wrote, "Hey, the Devil can just keep letting men find more ancient manuscripts with missing verses little by little over time until the Bible gets so much shorter and irrelevant so that he can have free reign to devour all the intellectuals who fall for his crafty tricks." May God have mercy on your soul! You are more than blind to the truth!

 

[Jim B]

From another Christian forum ToS: "We have decided that it is best to ban promotion of King James Version Only (KJVO) and King James Bible Only. King James Version preference is fine. As a Christian site that has people from many different denominations with different or authorized versions of the Bible we will consider any promotion of KJVO as goading/flaming."

I totally agree with this policy.