WHY THE KING JAMES BIBLES?
Since the first words given by inspirations from God that were written down are no longer with us and all we have are copies, can we say all we have is God’s message?
Does the copies have errors and we must decide which is God’s words and which words are from man? God’s word has been preserved through the years even from one language to another and we have His word without error to the English-speaking people in the King James Bible.
Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psalms 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
For over 350 years, the body of Christ used the King James Bible with confidence and believed it to be the Word of God. In 1881, the Revision Committee developed a new Greek text, under the leadership of Westcott and Hort, that is the basis of all modern translations. This new Greek text is used to replace the Received Text of the King James Version. This new text was used to translate the Revised Version, 1881 and the American Standard Version, 1901. We are told that these modern translations were done to update for easier reading and the changes are minor. Satan can’t destroy God’s word so he uses men to teach his method of (1) subtract a word or words (2) change a word or words (3) add a word or words (4) remove words from context. (Genesis 3:1-6) Who changed scripture? Who is responsible for this confusion? Satan is the author of confusion.
Gal 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
There is one absolute standard by which all bibles are compared, the King James Bible. So it is one against all the rest. So which one is right? Compare the following verses to the same verses in other translations.
Does the modern translation leave out firstborn son? If so, Mary was not a virgin.
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS
Does the modern translation change “Joseph” to “father”? If so, Joseph could have been the father of Jesus.
Luke 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Does the modern translation change “blood” to “death”? If so, Jesus could have died without shedding His blood and we would not have redemption through his blood.
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Does the modern translation change “God” to “he”? If so, Jesus would not be God.
I Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Does the modern translation leave out “without a cause” in Matt 5:22? If so, Jesus was a sinner.
Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.
Mark 3:5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger,
Does the modern translation change “of” to “in” in Rom 3:22? If so, then the righteousness of God is by your faith and not by the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.
Does the modern translation change “rightly dividing” to “rightly handling” in II Tim 2:15? If so, then there is no division in the word of truth, it is all to us.
II Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Does the modern translation leave out “O Lucifer” and add “o morning star” in Isaiah 14:12? If so, then Jesus and Lucifer are the same.
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations.
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Who does the modern translation say who killed Goliath? Is it David or Elhanan, or both?
I Sam 17:51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.
II Sam 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
What about the New King James ? Here are just a few omissions:
1. The word “Lord” 66 times.
2. The word “God” 51 times.
3. The word “heaven” 50 times.
4. The word “repent” 44 times.
5. The word “blood” 23 times.
6. The word “hell” 22 times.
7. The word “Jehovah” entirely.
8. The word “new testament” entirely.
9. The word “damnation” entirely.
10. The word “devils” entirely.
The New King James demotes Jesus Christ:
King James Version:
1. Luke 13:8 Sir Lord
2. Matt 18:26 Master Lord
3. Matt 20:20 kneeling down worshipping him
4. John 8:35 a son the Son
5. Matt 8:19 Teacher Master
The New King James demotes the Trinity King James Version
1. Acts 17:29 Divine Nature Godhead
2. John 14:16 Helper Comforter
3. Col 3:17 God the Father through him God and the father by him
These are just a few examples of the word changes in the New King James Version. We must ask ourselves why were all these changes made? Making minor changes or additions of little substance to preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The modern versions must change those simple one or two syllable words to more complex words in order to get a copyright on their version. Modern translations have not been produced for the sole reason of helping the reader understand his bible but to get copyrights in order to make money.
The promoters of the KJV only position work from a basis founded in ignorance and this is true among the mid-acts dispensationalists too! This is astonishing to me since they should know better to prove all things. They make the statement that all the modern versions are copyrighted; this is absolutely false. Why do they say it? Not because they have done any research on the matter, that is for sure. No they only say it to parrot the lies of others, and yes, all who say that all modern Bible versions are copyrighted are liars. Also, those who say that they are copyrighted to make money are also liars. While it may be true of some, others are trying to protect the text from being changed; since they do not have print versions and only freely accessable electronic versions, they can not be accused of profit as the motive. Others are being sold at cost, again no profit intended!
Another lie of the KJVo promoters is that all modern versions are based on the W/H Greek text and its derivatives. Again this is an ignorant falsehood with no basis in reality. The ignorance is by choice because they refuse to interact and converse with those who can enlighten their darkened world. This choice makes them no less than a liar.
How about a little honesty or are you all just going for a ride on the KJVo bandwagon? I have come across a number of mid-acts sites that boldly proclaim these ignorant (by choice) lies. When will they stand up and quit themselves like men and either modify their statements, or better yet, abandon such propaganda and agenda oriented tripe?
In Christ and hoping to enlighten the ignorant,
Ross Purdy
Any responses to my email will be responded to by a spam-challenge system. You will have to answer the challenge in order for your email to be released to my account.
Here is one a forgot. The KJVo agenda will incorporate the "KJV is public domain and not copyrighted" argument. This is not an outright lie but it tells only a half truth which is the same tactic the devil uses. The KJV is what one could say is Crown copyrighted. Today, any printer in Breat Britain must have a license in order to print the KJV. Of Course, this was in place from the beginning and has never changed. Therefore any editions printed without the Crown's permission of "cum privilegio" is a pirated edition. The Crown only has jurisdiction in Great Britain and its colonies and can not enforce this copyright of sorts outside its domain. The Crown has failed to update to a worldwide copyright and apparently has not deemed the trouble worth it, but is this an excuse for God-honoring saints to use pirated and technically illegal copies? It has the appearance of evil! Unless you are using a Cambridge, Oxford, Collins and perhaps a few others, you are violating the right of the Crown of England to license the Authorised Version of 1611! The KJV is not like modern books that have a copyright and then with age pass into the public domain. The KJV has never gone that route. The first edition printed in the USA with the endorsement of the congress was done in defiance of the Crown of England and in violation of its domain. The KJV is the property of the High Church of England which is the Anglican Church. What are fundamentalist Christians doing promoting a version that was designed to promote and protect the position of Anglican Bishops of a sacerdotal (practicing sacraments) denomination, as well as, the "divine right of kings" doctrine (a doctrine fully endorsed by King James to essentially practice tyranny over his subjects and over-rule any of their representatives in government like Parliament)? Better check your KJV publisher lest you be numbered with theives and such like criminals. Even if you do have a "legal" printed copy, why are you venerating such an anti-American version that was designed to promote doctrines that contradict every value that our founding fathers held dear?
Come on now brother, don't get your shorts bunched up over the issue!
June 8 2004, 9:46 PM
You are correct in your research and I appreciate you bringing it to light. This is a very informative page I found on the subject written by Catholics.
Not that because it was written by Catholics it's any less of a truth, just a different perspective, sort of a check and balance for us crazy bible believers :) To take a more common sense approach to the bible controversy please research the bible doctrine of preservation and inerrancy. I think the main point to the brothers post was that he believers (whether copyright or no copyright) that God has PRESERVED His book through the ages. If you believe that (maybe you don't) then you must take the next logical step. How did He preserve it? Based on bible doctrine (any bible) he did it by the methodology of copies, written copies and TRANSLATION. The next question might be, is it perfect? Again, bible doctrine says overwhelmingly YES, it's perfect, it's HOLY SCRIPTURE. If it's preserved, if it's supposed to be preserved infallibly, then where is it at for me? Well, I and the brother would agree that it's found in the KJV. Every word in it is true. It's an ACCURATE translation. Could you translate it differently, or phrase verses in varying manner? Yes, you could. The point is...it's ACCURATE! That's the main point, accuracy; other bibles just aren't as accurate as the KJV. You can be what you want; nobody (I hope) wants to rule over your faith. Do you think God is going to say on judgment day..."You idiot, you thought I had a perfectly preserved translation for you, you are so dumb. How could you think such a thing of me"? It's better to believe you have a book that you can stand on, that can be confused with subjectivism, THAT IS A STANDARD for all faith and practice. Something you are held accountable to. That's the main difference between KJVo people and other folks, Catholics, other Evangelicals, Protestants, etc. They believe they have a STANDARD for faith and practice! They all have a place they can come to objectively that will be right, and they will be wrong. I think by the way, calling people liars isn't correct, but when you called them (and myself) ignorant, you were right. I was ignorant. I used to use that argument, not as the foundation for the KJV, but as a sub point among many points. I will no longer use that point thanks to your light, I appreciate your point of view. I still believe the KJV to be the source for all matters of faith and practice. It's where we get our truth from. If that truth isn't rooted in truth but falseness, then it's no longer truth and my foundation has crumbled. All I'm left with is my own opinion, translation, or how I think it should be. How can anyone come to conclusions with that? Scholars all argue among themselves on what the bible should say in any given translation. When they don't want the verse to say what it says, they say..."a better translation would be...". It's ridiculousness! If you don't want to use a KJV, then don't, but when we discuss doctrine, PICK ONE (version), or make your own up from Gen to Rev! The point is, have a STANDARD, and if you don't have a standard...GET ONE! Do you have a standard or not? If so, what is it? I'd like to know.
I hope you reply back as I'm interested in your reply.
Thanks for your interaction! And if I perhaps shine some light on the matter for few, you are welcome! More light than heat, I hope, but I don't believe it is too often possible to have one without some of the other.
This is inevitably long so I broke it up to make for more convenient blocks of reading.
First, concerning liars: I want to convey that one is a liar if they continue to promote an agenda when they know better. One is as guilty as a liar when they are afraid to face a challenge honestly or at all for fear they or their followers might be convinced of a different view than the one they hold. One can be sure they will not change their mind before tackling the challenge, but they must allow that they may change their mind on the matter or else their intent is dishonest. Also, those so arrogant as to dismiss any view that is not a part of their band-wagon's agenda may not be liars, but are worse... If one is determined to be a defender of their version of the faith, they are like those dead ones who have tethered themselves to carved letters in stone, they will not only be tossed to and fro in the waves of reality, they will sink and drown. Those who are honestly open to a challenge have a boat and a sail for the Holy Spirit to fill and propel. But like DOCTRINE, we are able to subjectively steer it in the wrong direction. Can we say we have a STANDARD? I think there is very wide agreement on the point but the bounds of what is that standard is also wide. Whose faith is stronger, those desperately clinging to parroted "doctrines" concocted by fallible men and left unchallenged by the fearful lest the sky should fall or those taking the risk of meeting the challenge by setting sail on a sea of seemingly dangerous waves? Doctrines set high on pedestals by what have essentially become mini-popes and bishops even though they be "fundamentalists" don't look like very safe moorings when one dares to set sail. You don't have to go very far before you look over your shoulder and see how shaky those moorings really are. Those tied to them have no experience sailing and will perish when those moorings disolve. The fear is there underlying those clinging to man-made idols, they instinctively know the danger they are in but can't bring themselves to do the one thing that will save them. They won't do it because the mini-popes and bishops promise that without the "standard" as they define it and shape it, their faith will crumble. We sheep are more pathetic than we ever imagined...Dear God, send someone to break our brazen serpent into pieces and dust! God will help anyone rise above it and cause them to mature. I testify to this because I have been there and am now back and alive to tell the tale! One brother condemned me to atheism within five years of taking my first steps on that journey...that being a dozen years ago, I have a stronger faith now in God and His Word now more than ever!
I am convinced that fear of losing one's faith is a definite factor in what may very well be a minor percentage of KJVo adherents, but it is a well played upon fear by the preachers of KJVo and Isay that from plentiful personal experiences.
We have copies of Koine NT's and Hebrew and Chaldee OT manuscripts, and we have translations into various languages spanning two thousand years. Do we have God's Word? Most certainly! This is just a matter of plain fact since we have it in our hands and we have discovered the evidence that proves it and this apart from doctrine. We can discuss the doctrine part latter since we do disagree on what is doctrine true to the Bible and what is not.
Has the Bible been "providentially" preserved? Again, your opinion is that someone's doctrinal construction proves it has been and I simply disagree. It has been preserved having been entrusted to the saints who were good, bad, and quite imperfect. I would perhaps allow some kind of providence but due not to some external care of God, rather by the Word's own inherent power. I am quite convinced that we waste our time defending the faith for it is faith which defends us. We humans are the ones needing protection and preservation and it is God's Word which has accomplished that, NOT the other way around! God has promised that his Word would not return to Him void, what has that to do with a particular version? NOTHING.
Is it perfect? NO. God's spoken Word has always been perfect even as the Living Word is, but the written Word has travelled a rough path that has taken its toll. It has been subjected to the ravages of time and imperfect humanity. It is impossible to deny the frail human touch, but that is God's way to exalt Himself as He always has; that way there is no mistaking Whose power is being made manifest. And yet, it has been passed down to us in such condition (even though somewhat imperfect) that testifies to its divine origin and content which is absolutely fresh and powerful even unto the salvation of men and its conforming them to Christ our Lord.
Your jaw has by now bounced on the floor several times but let me remind you that here I stand (in a cyber sense) before you to testify that my faith has gotten stronger instead of drying up like you thought it would! It has not crumbled into dust and let me tell you something candidly and in perfect honesty: Whether we are talking about textual criticism, higher criticism, and every other kind of criticism, and they keep coming up with new ones all the time, not a one of them makes me break out in a sweat! Why? Certainly not because I have tenaciously clung to idols (man's subjective interpretation of God's Word). No I dared take up the challenge and dispite my shortcomings and inadequacies, God has sustained me. That should encourage every saint to trust in God.
What about accuracy? I am witness to more and more absurdities because simple folk simply do not understand the outdated English of our beloved KJV. The last one I saw was a failure to understand that "should" in KJV English is not a suggestion but rather an imperative! One needs to define "accurate"! If we have been raised in a fundamental church and we have been trained from tots on in the KJV biblish language, we can admit to some kind of "accuracy", but those outside this elite group can not understand portions which lead to misinterpretations and corruptions of Bible doctrines which further skews all other doctrine. Each generation, for whatever sad reason, are finding the KJV more and more obscure. My wife candidly admitted to having a joy for reading the Bible and had a hard time setting down a modern English version. She was raised KJVo and had even won an essay contest on Why the KJV was the best! What bravado I thought (particularly since her father is a pastor of a KJVo church). What kind of standard fails to inspire one to read it with understanding, comprehension and joy? One that needs to be replaced or at least updated. We CAN do better translation and use a better text (a sure bet for future discussion). The average person can become competent to discern these matters without fear and trembling or without ignoring them and pretending they do not exist.
Finally, we can not ignore what evidence we do have of the Bible's history and passage through time including the history of the English Bible and King James purpose in commissioning the 1611 Authorized version. Topics for future discussion!
Keep in mind Ross, adjusting isn't "throwing the baby out with the bath water". It's fine to a adjust your thinking on issues such as doctrine or the bible issue, but to completely throw out your foundation tells me you weren't really grounded in any truth to begin with, or to use your analogy, you didn't even have a boat! Faith, or loosing it, tells me you didn't have "good ground" so to speak in the first place. Not that you weren't saved, or that you didn't have faith, just that it wasn't rooted. Adjusting would mean you "trim the hedges", not plant the flower all over again. That's not the meaning of adjusting. To use your boat analogy, its changing course to the destination you are already headed for, not plotting an entirely new one to a new destination. You didn’t readjust you jumped ship.
Second, we can assume everyone has a bandwagon, every denomination has their own, even us who are not part of a denomination, sects, or some other off-shoot, including you Ross, yours is non-KJVo bandwagon, to get all men to see what is the real bible, or not really a bible. Baptists have the water baptism bandwagon, and sometimes KJVo, crazymatics have tongue talking, miracles, signs, and wonders, Catholics have their tradition handed down over millennia, etc. We should be evaluating our own agendas. My agenda happens to be - at least on here, to get people to re-evaluate their own beliefs, which also seems to by your intent here. If you're "mid-acts", why? If you're KJVo, why? If you're acts 28, why? If you disagree with KJVo, why? It's to know what you believe and WHY! You seem to know what you believe and why (I think). It also seems like you are angry about someone believing in a perfectly preserved word of God for English speaking people today, that has no error and they can trust. Why? Is it something the Devil would deceive people about? Is it an evil satanic plan to get people to believe this doctrine? It would seem to me that Satan doesn't want to promote God as being true, so could this doctrine come about by him? Is it Satan's goal to get everyone deceived that God does have a really perfectly preserved book you can trust today? I think not. Maybe that’s just a doctrine bought about by ignorant people who are standing on an empty bag of facts. For us today, God's word is all we have (besides his Spirit, the functioning of which is up for debate of course). If that's all we have for all matters of faith and practice, doesn't it seem logical that God would give us a preserved valid testimony where every word in it is true not just the general idea with some mistakes? Is this a bad bandwagon to promote? I think we just have to agree to disagree on this one Ross, and leave it at that. You studied the issue and have come out on the other side. Good for you, you studied, which is half the battle and made a logical decision on that research. Again, good for you, and hey, I'll pat myself on the back too, good for me, since I have also studied and have taken the exact opposite position.
Third...the bunches. Saying we have a pile of manuscripts doesn't prove we have anything but writings that SAY they are God's word. Where you there when the writer penned them? No! How do you know they are God's word then? You take a shot in the dark and believe what they say...or believe someone else who said they are (ancient commentators, lectionaries, "fathers", etc). How can you say "Do we have God's Word? Most certainly!", you can't most certainly say that Ross, YOU WEREN'T THERE, the historical evidence is subjectively written who believed them to be God’s word, but were they really? Perhaps that person was deceived as KJVo people are today! How do you know for certain Ross? You just BELIEVE it, you can't PROVE it. You say the bible is "...somewhat imperfect", then what portion is imperfect Ross, the part about Christ dying for you sins? The part about God creating man and woman? The part about gay marriage being WRONG? I can go on! You have a weak foundation; I would take a stab in the dark and say you were an allegorical, practical interpreter of the scripture, that the IDEA is more powerful than that of the actual literal meaning (I could be wrong). The view you take can have such subjectivity, and does. If the bible has mistakes in it it's the exact opposite of what you say, it doesn't testify to it's divine origin and content, it's not fresh and powerful even unto salvation of men, it's false, it's preservation is false, it's origin is false, thus, it's content is false making it not much better than Chicken Soup for the Soul. It would testify to me that some man wrote it, or very clever men of old, the truly great thinkers and philosophers of whom, if they were alive today have written the very finest novel.
Fourth, my jaw hasn't dropped, I'm not surprised, and I’ve run into people who hold opposing views from me before Ross. It's OK, your still a brother in Christ (I hope, that is, if those verses about His death aren’t error). Because you don't believe the KJVo won't make you crumble into the sea of death, it will just keep you exactly what you are...a "critic". A bible critic is in fact what you are, more typically a critic of the KJV. You say "God has sustained" you…well how? How has he sustained you? Without an accurate book, knowing what is mostly accurate wouldn't sustain me one bit. But, if almost accurate does it for you, so be it. You'll continue the rest of your Christian life trying to make God's word more perfect and right. I think you would agree Ross, that because somebody doesn't understand the word "should" or various other words in the KJV, doesn't make the words inaccurate, it makes that person ignorant and inaccurate. By the way, I wasn't raised in a fundamental KJVo church, nor do I even attend church (topic for discussion another time, especially since I think you are a Methodist Pastor). To say that people who read and understand the KJV are in an elite group wouldn't be an understatement. Those people are because they are in the minority. KJVo people are an elite group because they too are the minority. People have been misrepresenting doctrines since the apostles, that's true, and they didn't even have a KJV, they had some, and that's SOME, originals! It's not God's fault people didn't and still don't understand His word. You can't blame the KJV on misinterpretations and bible doctrine corruptions; again, it's the people, it always has been. Good for your wife that she loves to read the bible. Reading the bible is one thing, but understanding it is another. I can surely read a living bible much easier than the KJV (I suppose), but can I understand it better? Would you rather I study the Living bible, NIV, ASV, JKVV, or KJV? Perhaps your translation is the best. Which bible do you recommend? I don't speak Greek, Hebrew, Chaldea, Latin, Arabic, etc, which bible is the best one for me? I’m a poor slob who isn't a part of the TRULY elite crowd who understands those languages, of which I assume you are since you know what translation should be best? The only thing in my opinion Ross is that the people need updating (study) not the KJV. The people need to be enlightened.
Lastly, there are always two sides to every coin. You have your version of historical facts, KJVo people have theirs. Someone once told me to not just look at history, but the people who write history. Are those people objective in their representation of the "facts" or are they skewing it towards their position? That shed some light on the matter for me. I observed it recently when two people were debating the Second World war, which wasn't even thousands of years ago. They had two totally different opinions on why and how it started, the various factors that contributed to it etc. There are opposing views on any historical evidence (like creation and evolution!). If you want to look at historical facts, I would suppose you wouldn't believe the bible at all (I wouldn't). The fossil record is a huge historical fact you see staring at you in the face every time you visit a museum and it's not even spoken of in the bible (leviathan, and a few misc. verses don't speak to it my friend, perhaps a discussion for another time). Historical fact isn't always historical fact. That's why KJVo defenders write books with OPOSING historical viewpoints than those trying to argue against them in their non-KJVo books. To discuss this any further would really be fruitless. You are in one camp misrepresenting the other on what they believe about the KJVo as popes, idols, etc, and we're in the other camp misrepresenting you about non-KJVo, copyrights, historical facts, etc. You get your fact, and I'll get mine, will go back and forth. It all boils down to...(and I'm putting it in caps not because I'm mad but for emphasis) DO YOU BELIEVE THE BOOK OR NOT? BECAUSE IF YOU DO, YOU WOULDN'T CORRECT IT, IF YOU DON'T BLIEVE THE BOOK, YOU'LL CONTINUE TO CORRECT IT OR NEED A BETTER TRANSLATION. That's the simplicity of the whole argument. I choose to trust the KJV, that its Gods word for me, perfect, without error and an accurate translation, and you don't, you belive it to CONTAIN Gods word, with some mistakes, etc, and we could really use an up to date representation of what God says. Again, do you think God will ask me why I believed He had a perfectly preserved word for me today at judgment? That's probably low on His list. My final question, because I could go on is…if God’s word “…has traveled a rough path that has taken its toll. It has been subjected to the ravages of time and imperfect humanity. It is impossible to deny the frail human touch…” what makes you think you can reconstruct it, you merely continue to ravage it with that logic. It’s continually on a downward spiral helped by your hands.
Looking forward to your final comments Ross, let’s wrap this one up. I’m tired of beating a dead horse. This debate will surely be interesting enough to read. We will surely not change the course of the overall debate or settle it in the minds of others or ourselves. Each beliver will have to come to conclusions on their own, hopefully. I’ve enjoyed our exchange.
Rafael, I enjoy the interaction as well. Do not take any thing too personally. You are assuming the position and so you get to be the front man. I am not just opposing you but things I have seen on web sites as well as people I have heard argue the position.
When the ship has holes in it and its filling up with water, as well as, the rudder being jammed in one position with no way to make corrections... jumping ship becomes the only option! But I have not gone far enough for you to presume that I have thrown the baby out with the water. If I have an agenda, it is this: A trustworthy Bible that is understood as well as accurate for today's audience. If we can identify some issues which appear to be errors or mistakes or discrepancies, I'd rather deal with them than pretend they do not exist. Is Satan out to get everyone on the KJVo wagon? No, I think he has multiple interests which work for him. Will God bawl you out for believing in a providentially preserved inerrant infallible single English Bible for English people? I think He will since such notions are not found in any English Bible without some incredible and untenable interpretations. Remember, it is the teachers of the KJVo position that talk about losing your faith and warn of impending doom and a crumbling foundation if you don't use the KJV or if you use a Bible with one faint error in it! Not those who do not use it. There are a lot of solid saints not using the KJV. We can move to superior translations without losing our foundation of faith. I think it is rather arrogant to think we have arrived when it comes to any particular doctrine and such is the KJVo bandwagon. Meanwhile, children are growing up misunderstanding God's Word and learning wrong interpretations of His doctrine in some areas because they simply are not grasping what the Bible really says. It is a problem that does not go away.
You said, "doesn't it seem logical that God would give us a preserved valid testimony where every word in it is true not just the general idea with some mistakes?" Brother, we can think up alot of things that seem logical, but what good is it when divorced from the facts. Do we ignore the evidence to defend preconceived notions or do we look at the evidence in all honesty. We can do just that without fear of losing our faith. You wonder how it is possible but I have done it and I have not lost my faith. That flat out denies all the fears that fly around the KJVo camp doesn't it? They used to think you would fall off the edge of the world if you sailed to far out in the ocean until a few sailed all the way around the world and came back to tell about it. I have sailed around the world and it is a sphere! It is not flat and you won't fall aff the edge!
The Bible has been preserved by his people, but obviously not perfectly. The textus receptus has deviated from the historical Greek text in several places. I know we’ve been told that the TR IS the historical text but that is not quite true! Blame Erasmus, blame the printers of the early editions of the TR or whatever, the evidence is there. Do I hate Erasmus and the printers for not providing us with the exact historical text, i.e., the Greek Bible used by the saints up until that time? Despite the aspersions cast on them, I thank God for them and admire them. There is also the Latin Vulgate which was used in the west some 1,000 plus years and it is very riddled with errors. Why didn't God preserve an infallible and inerrant Bible for those folks? If He didn't then, why now with the KJV. It is amazing how we survived and continue to survive under less than perfect conditions.
The existence of the historical evidence is an objective fact. How it is interpreted is subjective. I was not there, but I can look at the evidence we have and draw some conclusions. I can also evaluate the present effect of the evidence and draw conclusions. I can also hear the testimony of the Book to me and consider it, test it and determine its character. I can gage its effects on the saints. I believe it is possible and not at all fruitless. We can shape our subjectivity to the form of the objective facts or we can ignore the objective reality and concoct whatever we want and venerate it. That is what idolatry is whether we recognise that we are doing it. If I warn you of your error, will you become angry with me and dismiss me or say, "well you could be deceived too"? I say it not to be derogatory but to warn my Brothers and Sisters who are in danger.
Have you actually researched it and studied it out or have you read only somebody's book? Have you compared the various printed editions of the TR or taken someone's word for their content. Have you compared the various English Bibles that came before the KJV with the KJV? What percent of the text was or was not changed? Have you studied the history of the KJV? Who were the nonconformists? Were they considered by King James to be friends or enemies of the Church of England and himself? What is the Millenary Petition? What were the regulations for the translators given at Hampton Court? Why were those particular rules set? How did these things affect the final form of the KJV? What promotions did the translators receive within the Church of England? When did the KJV finally ascend over the Geneva as the people's Bible? When was the printing of Geneva Bibles banned in England? When was the importation of the Geneva banned? Have you really studied it out? It can be done without fear.
You ask a valid question, "What portions are imperfect?" The answer is not nearly so devastating as you imply (which implies a great deal of fear). Are you scared that all our "orthodox" doctrines will be devastated? Do you avoid finding the truth by dismissing any attempt at examining the evidence and say, "You just BELIEVE it, you can't PROVE it." Do you use the threat of "you will end up with a "weak foundation" or none at all to scare people from even thinking about taking their head out of the sand? That's not faith brother, that's fear holding you in ignorance. Are you afraid the evidence will destroy our doctrine? Well, it has not destroyed mine! So is that evidence of a weak foundation or a solid foundation? IF I testify that the evidence does show "divine origin and content" and that it is "fresh and powerful even unto the salvation of men" despite whatever "mistakes" it may have, why do you gain say it? I crossed the line and I am not destroyed! Can you not imagine a single "mistake" in or discrepancy since it was entrusted to humanity for a couple of millennia? I believe you have studied some books by those who are bent on denigrating anything but the KJV! Perhaps you have read some material supporting the modern critical text and was not satisfied. Neither was I and I have read and studied it out. I am not angry, I am concerned! Why tie a mill stone around your neck when a life vest is available? We have collected some 5,500 NT manuscripts and it proves that God's Word has been preserved. It is not too hard to get over the fact that most of those documents are in rough shape and incomplete. Now are we to be impressed with a few and very expected desrepancies or with the unity exhibited? You are worried that a little water spilled out and got a few specks of dirt dropped into the glass and many act as though such is practically empty and absolutely corrupt! I see something amazing, a full portion of good refreshing water! Getting bent out of shape over a few spilt drops and a few specks is a waste, it is extreme and unbalanced, it is unworthy. The drink you offer is not the purist nor the fullest, we can do better.
Can we survive drinking water with a few impurities in it? Can we eat food and live even though it has some bacteria in it? Can we read God's Word even though it has a few "mistakes" in it? The notion of perfection is a vanity. Nothing touched by humanity remains perfect. Am I a critic of the KJV? Absolutely! It is not hard to be a critic of something that has plenty obvious imperfections. Yet, it has sustained me and nourished and blessed me. You ask how that can be if it is not perfect, I tell you it has blessed me even though it is imperfect. The fact is that we have had to get along with less than perfection, lets not pretend otherwise. Do I hate the KJV because I am a critic? No, I love the KJV! It is my first love and it is my favorite despite its imperfections, (like my wife)! But that does not mean it is the best for all, no quite the opposite.
The words change meaning over time and that does indeed make the KJV inaccurate. The words are not communicating the same message as translated for the original audience. That is a fact. I can blame people AND the KJV for misrepresentations! Some due to obsolete language and some intentional. The KJV is in no way a neutral translation. It was carefully designed to promote the hierarchy of the Church Of England and Englands King. You see, the nonconformists did not believe in a pope, nor did they believe in a king as the notes in their Geneva Bible so unequivocally pointed out. But King James believed in the doctrine of "the divine right of Kings" (Do you know what that involves?) and realized that they and their Geneva Bible notes were a threat to his position. That is why one of the rules for the KJV was NO NOTES! King James ranted, "No Bishop, No king!" The nonconformists ideas of reform for the Church of England threatened the episcopacy and the crown.
with theology degrees that don't know Calvin practiced the sacraments, well, so did Burgon and Scrivener were members of the Church of England and thus practiced the sacraments. Why do fundamentalists want to promote the Bible of a sacerdotal church and its King who thought tyranny was his right? And yet fundamentalist Baptists think Burgon would be their buddy! Burgon would be kicked out of the Baptist church and I don't think the Baptists would stay when it came time to do the sacraments. Oh well, I had a baptist friend with a graduate degree in theology that could not believe that Calvin practiced the sacraments! The KJV is definitely a major culprit in promoting false ecclesiology and assumes a sacerdotal church.
It would be easier to have people learn the original languages than sort out the KJV's language anymore (An exaggeration!). Believing the Book is why I want it corrected otherwise I would not care. We can always have a better translation. It is not a threat, just something that needs to be done. Language changes and that is another fact. Does it need to be reconstructed, no nothing so radical. It is not so bleak a picture as we might be scared into believing. Fear-mongering is a common practice among the big name KJVo promoters.
Do you know how many modern NT versions there are based on the Textus Receptus? Our KJVo brothers would have us believe there is only the KJV as is evident from the categorical statements on their web sites. There are nearly three dozen TR based NTs in existence! Well, says the KJVo pro, we are concerned only with the popular versions. Well, then, I challenge them to remove the false statements and or modify them. And maybe if they started using the viable alternatives they would be more popular, but no, only the KJV will do. Does that not smack of idolatry or something close to it?
Actually, I prefer the Byzantine Majority Greek Text by Robinson, and Pierpont (deceased). This is the text that the historical church actually used. The TR was derived from the Byzantine Greek, and I might say, imperfectly at that. Do not confuse it with the Hodges and Farstadt Majority Text being promoted by E. Pickering. With respect to the story of the adulteress and the book of Revelation, Robinson and Pierpont did not use stematics like Hodges and Farstadt did. Stematics was employed by the creators of our modern mixed mutt, the Nestle - Aland / United Bible Societies derivative.
Concerning my comments about idols; is it a misrepresentation when one is so devoted to one particular Bible version that they spite themselves and everyone else to uphold it...isn't that version now an idol? And mini-popes, well, a little explaining. The Church of England is a mildly reformed break away from the Roman Catholic Church and is set up similarly. It promotes a hierarchy of Bishops with the King as head. The King essentially replaces the pope. Now the protestant denominations have inherited the Church of England's Bible and how do they set up there churches? Like a miniature Church of England, a pastor replaces the pope/king and the board of elders replaces the hierarchy of Bishops! This is the chief complaint I have concerning the KJV: it is in the passages concerning the structure of the church that the KJV was intentionally mistranslated. We have followed this error and have further substituted rulership for leadership which are to be distinguished. This error is also due to the intentional mistranslation of the KJV! Rulership uses authority (usurped I might add) to coerce people into doing the will of the ruler. Leadership uses no authority but rather servant-hood in love and respect to lead by setting a living example... and that too is another subject.
I can't believe you think I am a Methodist Pastor! OUCH! I am not a Pastor (although I pastor my family)!
I'll tell ya what happens when MidActs poeple throw out the KJV; They lay hold of ONE corrupt lexicon. They act like they have the majority text in its original form but in reality they have one man's lexicon. 9 out of ten times its Kittles(A Nazi war criminal) Greek. Well the KJV is based on the majority text easily proven. Modern bible readers are just as bad as seen in the NIV's footnotes; only based on two manuscripts easily proven to be garbage;One found in a trash can,the other so badly added and ommited; see Dean Burgons work for actual pictures of the Vatican text butchered by Catholic priests. Catholics had it decades before anybody else. That isn't all but that is plenty. -------------Greg