Open Debate Challenge on My Defending the KJV as the Perfect Word for Today in English

[Bible Highlighter]

That's what I use, for public reading, personal reading, study, and quoting on the forum. I'm not King James Only, I just happen to think it's the best we have in English.

Much love!

I am also not KJV-only. I am Core KJV. The KJV is my core foundational text but that does not mean I do not use dictionaries or Modern Translations in helping to understand the archaic language in the KJV better. However, I am not looking to re-write the KJV and or claim it has errors in it. I am not looking to correct what God said. I just want to believe the Bible and obey it and not correct it. I believe the KJV is the perfect, and inerrant words of God today (Despite the fact that its wording can be difficult and or archaic at times). The KJV is my final word of authority, and not Modern Bibles. Modern Bibles teach many false doctrines.

 

[Christian Soldier]

You are missing the point. They lied to the reader.

Dr. Arthur Farstad conceived of the NKJV translation project and he was the chief editor on it.

In Arthur’s book, The New King James Version: in the Great Tradition, Arthur Farstad, who served as executive editor of the New King James Version, passes on the guidelines for the editors and translators. It begins:

“The purpose of this project is to produce an updated English version that follows the sentence structure of the 1611 Authorized Version as closely as possible. (…) The intention is not to take from or alter the basic communication of the 1611 edition but to transfer the Elizabethan word forms into twentieth-century English. The traditional texts of the Greek and Hebrew will be used rather than modern critical texts based on the Westcott and Hort theory.”​

However, the NKJV favors the NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV readings at times (Which are other Modern versions that are based on the Critical texts or Alexandrian texts). In fact, this lie that the NKJV is solely a TR text and it does not follow the Alexandrian manuscripts is also promoted on Wikipedia and other online sources. At Wikipedia, it states that the textual basis for the NKJV New Testament is TR (Textus Receptus). While it is true that the TR may be the primary textual basis of the NKJV, that was not the case in all verses because we can see clear changes in the translation that favor the Alexandrian manuscripts or Westcott & Hort’s Revised Edition (The same changes we see in other Modern bibles that are based on the Alexandrian texts), as well. So the NKJV is a Trojan horse bible. It is not what it advertises itself to be.

Another unsettling thing about the NKJV is that it says you can delete what you felt was not a part of the text.

Taken right out of the NKJV pages. It says this:

In fact, the NKJV when it first came out said that they were not going to expose us to the Westcott and Hort text. They lied.
See this video here:

Doctrines Affected in the NKJV:

1. The Personal Pronouns are Removed (See here).
2. The word “generation” in Matthew 1 in the KJV is changed to genealogy. Note: This is important to understand because Matthew 1 is not the genealogy (bloodline) of Jesus Christ but it is a generational listing of Abraham and King David to Joseph (who is the husband of Mary but he is not the blood father of Jesus Christ).
3. Repent is changed to mean other things that do not mean “repent.” (Doctrine).
4. Follows Modern bibles by altering 2 Timothy 2:15. The KJB correctly says Study to shew yourself approved unto God, yet the NKJV alters this to mean something else. This appears in RV 1881. (Doctrine).
5. Changes Godhead (Trinity) to divine nature. This is changed in Romans 1:20 with the RV 1881. (Doctrine).
6. Genesis 2:18, “I will make him an help meet for him.” Is changed to: “I will make him a helper comparable to him.” (Doctrine).
7. Proverbs 19:18 let not thy soul spare for his crying is changed to do not set your heart on his destruction. A similar change is found in the RV 1881 (Doctrine).
8. John 1:3: changes “All things were made BY him;” to: “All things were made THROUGH Him” (NIV, NRSV, RSV) (Doctrine).
9. John 4:24: changes the KJV “God is a spirit” to the impersonal, New Age pantheistic, “God is spirit” (NIV, NASV, NRSV) (Doctrine).
10. 1 Thess. 5:22 change “all appearance of evil” to “every form of evil” (NASV, RSV, NSRV) (Doctrine).
11. Titus 3:10: changes “heretic” to “divisive man” (NIV) (Doctrine).
12. Hebrews 2:16 (KJV) "For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham." Hebrews 2:16 (NKJV) "For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham." Clearly this is an attack on the deity of Jesus Christ. (Doctrine).
13. 2 Corinthians 10:5 - Casting down imaginations (vs.) casting down arguments (Doctrine).
14. 1 Peter 1:7 - trial (vs.) genuineness. The KJV says, "That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:" The NKJV says, "that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ," (Doctrine).
15. Colossians 3:2-KJV reads, "Set your affection on things above." NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV change "affection" to "mind." (Doctrine).
16. The words, “shall make him of quick understanding” is removed Isaiah 11:3. This is important because it is in context of the fear of the LORD (Doctrine).
17. Daniel 3:25 is footnoted, or a son of the gods. So which is it? Having two alternative readings casts doubt on what is being said in the verse. (Doctrine).
18. Proverbs 16:10 changes a divine sentence (KJB) to divination (NKJV). Solomon wrote some proverbs as ideals for civil rulers, but he never proposed that kings should use witchcraft (Deut 18:10) (Doctrine).
19. NKJV replaced “dishonesty” with “shame.” 2 Corinthians 4:2 (NKJV) says, - “But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.” 2 Corinthians 4:2 (KJB) says, - “But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth” (Doctrine).
20. 1 Timothy 6:10 - money is root of all evil is changed to money is root of all kinds of evil. (Doctrine).
21. Romans 3:25 is altered. Romans 3:25 KJB says: "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." Romans 3:25 NKJV says: "Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed." (Doctrine).
22. 1 John 3:16: removes “love of God”; (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) (Truth). (Note: By removing the words “of God” it attacks the deity of Jesus Christ).

Truths Affected in the NKJV:

1. Genesis 22:8 - is changed to eliminate how God will be the Lamb. (Truth).
2. Ezra 8:36 - lieutenants is changed to satraps. This appears in the RV 1881. (Truth).
3. The Coming One (Which is what the New agers also are looking forward to - See write up below). (Truth).
4. Removes the word Satan and replaces it with, “an accuser” in Psalms 109:6. This change also appears in RV 1881. (Truth).
5. What are these wounds in my hands is changed to wounds between your arms (Zechariah 13:6). A similar change is found in RV 1881 (Truth).
6. Proverbs 18:8 tasty triffles. RV 1881 has something similar to the NKJV, but the RV distorts the KJV verse even more (Truth).
7. Matthew 18:26 & Matthew 20:20: The NKJV removes “worshiped him” (watering down the worship of Jesus) (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV). This change is found in Matthew 18:26 for the RV 1881 (Truth).
8. Mark 13:6 & Luke 21:8: removes “Christ” (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) (Truth).
9. John 14:2: (NKJV 1979 edition) changes “mansions” to “dwelling places” (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) (Truth).
10. Acts 24:14: changes “heresy” to “sect” (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) (Truth).
11. 2 Cor. 2:17: With all the “corruptions” in the NKJV, you’d expect 2 Cor. 2:17 to change. IT DOES! They change, “For we not as many which CORRUPT the word of God” to “For we are not, as so many, PEDDLING the word of God” (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) (Truth).
12. Rev. 2:13: changes “Satan’s seat” to “Satan’s throne” (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) (Truth).
13. The NKJV removes the word “Lord” 66 times! (Truth).
14. The NKJV removes the word God 51 times! (Truth).
15. The NKJV removes the word “heaven” 50 times! (Truth).
16. John 20:17 (KJB): Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17 (NKJV): Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ” (Truth).
17. HEBREWS 3:16 (KJV) - “For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.” (NKJV) - “For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?” (Truth).

The NIV was the first popular Modern Bible in the Modern Bible Movement based on the Westcott and Hort text.
The ESV is probably one of the worst of the Modern Bibles in the Modern Bible Movement.

I always strive to hear both sides of every argument, I have a general understanding on the positions both sides of the "King James Only" argument.

After considering the main arguments, I'm still comfortable with my NKJV Bible.

Why Do Our TR-Only Brothers Reject the NKJV with Such Passion? The Trinitarian Bible Society’s “Examination of the New King James Version” By Faith We Understand

NKJV MISREPRESENTED BY D.A. WAITE

NKJV MISREPRESENTED BY GAIL RIPLINGER

GAIL RIPLINGER'S MISREPRESENTATION OF THE NKJV ADDENDUM

As you can see, it's no a simple cut and dried deal.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I always strive to hear both sides of every argument, I have a general understanding on the positions both sides of the "King James Only" argument.

After considering the main arguments, I'm still comfortable with my NKJV Bible.

Why Do Our TR-Only Brothers Reject the NKJV with Such Passion? The Trinitarian Bible Society’s “Examination of the New King James Version” By Faith We Understand

NKJV MISREPRESENTED BY D.A. WAITE

NKJV MISREPRESENTED BY GAIL RIPLINGER

GAIL RIPLINGER'S MISREPRESENTATION OF THE NKJV ADDENDUM

As you can see, it's no a simple cut and dried deal.

It needs to be stated that Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and Steve Anderson are not KJV-only folk I would recommend in reading. There are many problems with these three individuals. Dr. Gene Kim has a few good KJV videos, but I would also caution very strongly against him, as well. He also gets some facts wrong and he is a bit of a hot head at times. He also holds to the false teaching of Mid Acts Dispensationalism, too. D.A. Waite has some good stuff, but he is not perfect or without error.

Nick Sayers (a fellow Australian) used to be a New King James Only guy for many years. When he started to investigate the issue, he could see there were differences. The video I sent you from Theo Kikmat is good. Also, look at the changed doctrines on my list I sent to you, as well. In addition, check out Nick Sayers videos critiquing Mark Ward on the NKJV on the Textus Receptus.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

David Cloud has a lot of good information. His website is WayofLife.org.

Anyway, in my view, the Modern Bible Movement is easily disproven because of their employed deception on multiple occasions, its liberalism, and compromise with Catholicism, and Unitarianism. The Modern Bible Movement today is traced back to 1881. The KJV and its line is traced back to the Waldenses and their Bible and they can in turn be traced back to the apostles. So the church always had the perfect words of God at some point in time in history.

The NKJV is a fake KJV or Trojan horse done by people who did not favor the Textus Receptus. The KJVER Translation would be better (Although you do have to ignore its suggested definitions that favor Critical Text Bibles). Nick Sayers also has a New Testament KJV that was put out in 2023. This would be better, as well. Nick is open to revising it based on good Christian feedback. The NKJV folk had an agenda and they are not friendly to the original source texts. Then again, all of these should be supplements to the real deal (i.e. the KJV).

I would not be quick to trust the Critical Text side when they attack the KJV or the TR. Yes, it is good to get our facts right, but they have an agenda to push their corrupted texts and or false philosophies and they are not looking to trust in a settled or perfect text like the KJV. Granted, if you like the idea of a shape shifter text that you can mold and change yourself and you do not want the precise words of God, then nothing I say here will really matter. I simply believe God preserved His word perfectly because that is what the Bible teaches. The KJV is the best candidate. It’s just that simple. Yes, the archaic language is a challenge. But that is what dictionaries and other translations are for. The key is to not re-write the KJV because we do not like what it says or because we do not understand it. Many times what we think is an error in the Bible is not an error. God tests our faith. I know this by experience.

 

[Christian Soldier]

LOL
Too late to complain about that. Do you have any idea where the Bible came from? We don't have the original manuscripts.

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101​

https://www.bereanpatriot.com/major...-101/#Corruption-of-the-Alexandrian-text-type

"It shouldn’t come as a surprise, but we don’t have the original documents that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and other New Testament writers wrote. They were originally written on either papyrus (essentially paper) or possibly parchment (animal skins) which have long since degraded with time and use. However, the originals were copied many, many times. Those copies were copied, which were copied, which were copied, which were…"

]

It looks like you don't believe that the Holy Bible is Gods Word, so the Bible came from God, regardless of your opinions. Your opinion doesn't change the truth at all. So if you don't believe that the Bible is Gods Word, I would venture to say we don't believe on the same God.

The God I believe in is almighty, so His Word didn't fail to reach His target audience. If it did fail as you suggest, then I don't believe in a God who fails in anything He sets out to achieve. The God I believe in always wins in all things.

 

[Christian Soldier]

What manuscripts are referring to that have been found post 1850?
Are you referring to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus?

I haven't done a search to find out what the manuscripts were called or where they were found, but I read what a very reliable source said about them here.

King James Only | Ligonier Ministries

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It looks like you don't believe that the Holy Bible is Gods Word, so the Bible came from God, regardless of your opinions. Your opinion doesn't change the truth at all. So if you don't believe that the Bible is Gods Word, I would venture to say we don't believe on the same God.

Nowhere did I state that the Bible is not God’s Word. I disagreed with the article on the grounds that they favor the Majority Text, which is not a settled text. The Byzantine manuscripts are generally in agreement with the KJV but they are not our final word of authority because they never have been made into a Bible today that has any kind of influence in the church.

The God I believe in is almighty, so His Word didn't fail to reach His target audience. If it did fail as you suggest, then I don't believe in a God who fails in anything He sets out to achieve. The God I believe in always wins in all things.

Right, my point exactly. I believe that the words of God exist perfectly with the Jews and the apostles. Then it existed perfectly with the Waldenses and their Vetus Latina Scriptures Then it existed perfectly after them with the King James Bible. The Modern Bible Movement while it can lead people to salvation, it can also lead people quickly back out of the faith, as well. The Modern Bibles can even help in our understanding of the archaic wording in the KJV, but they should never be a replacement for the KJV because Modern Bibles clearly teach false doctrines in many places.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I haven't done a search to find out what the manuscripts were called or where they were found, but I read what a very reliable source said about them here.

King James Only | Ligonier Ministries

This ministry is in favor of the Critical Text and not the Textus Receptus. They obviously have a bias. Why? Because folks like the idea of being liberal with the text. They like the idea of a shape shifter Bible that they can twist at times. No thank you. I am not a novice to this subject. I have come up with 150 reasons for the King James Bible. I have defended the KJV as the Word of God since 2012.

The Critical Text side distort the facts. They make up stuff about Erasmus, etcetera. While I am sure they may tell the truth sometimes, I don’t trust them because they have lied many times to defend their Critical Text agenda. Why would they do that? Well, there is big money in Modern Bibles. Modern Scholars would be out of a job if they started to promote George Vance Smith as being a problem or if they started to tell the truth about Erasmus and the history of the KJV.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I haven't done a search to find out what the manuscripts were called or where they were found, but I read what a very reliable source said about them here.

King James Only | Ligonier Ministries

So you don’t even know? Is there anything in history that shows the hand of God upon these manuscripts?

 

[Christian Soldier]

This is silly. Just because Paul wrote to Timothy who was in a pastoral role does not mean it was written only to pastors, teachers, and elders alone. Nothing in the context of these letters suggests that it is only for pastors, teachers, and elders.

1. Joshua 1:8
"This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success."

2. Psalm 1:2
"But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night."

3. Psalm 119:11
"Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee."

4. Psalm 119:105
"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path."

5. Acts 17:11
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

6. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

7. Colossians 3:16
"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord."

These verses in the KJV also emphasize the importance of studying, meditating on, and living by the Word of God.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 talks about the man of God in general and not Timothy alone, nor does it refer to pastors, teachers, or elders only.


A Christian can reject Christ and not even realize they are rejecting Him because they do not receive Christ’s words. This is evident if you read John 12:48 in light of reading also Matthew 13:41-42, and John 8:34-35. Obviously a person who rejects Christ’s words is not saved even if they may claim to know Christ or they think they are elect or saved. Many will be shocked come judgment day.



That is incorrect. God’s people are destroyed for lack of knowledge according to Hosea 4:6.

No it's not silly, you just failed to get the context of the verse, which was clearly given for paid ministers and not garden variety Church goers. We aren't worthy to be paid for our labor because our private study only benefits us, where as when Ministers/Shepherds study it benefits all the Sheep in their flock, so they are worthy of the payment they receive from the Sheep.

All those other verses are irrelevant as none of them say, you must study scripture as some kind of commandment.

Hosea 4:6 is not to be taken literally,
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priest for Me; Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.

That verse applied to those in Hosea's day, it doesn't apply to us.

 

[Christian Soldier]

It needs to be stated that Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and Steve Anderson are not KJV-only folk I would recommend in reading. There are many problems with these three individuals. Dr. Gene Kim has a few good KJV videos, but I would also caution very strongly against him, as well. He also gets some facts wrong and he is a bit of a hot head at times. He also holds to the false teaching of Mid Acts Dispensationalism, too. D.A. Waite has some good stuff, but he is not perfect or without error.

Nick Sayers (a fellow Australian) used to be a New King James Only guy for many years. When he started to investigate the issue, he could see there were differences. The video I sent you from Theo Kikmat is good. Also, look at the changed doctrines on my list I sent to you, as well. In addition, check out Nick Sayers videos critiquing Mark Ward on the NKJV on the Textus Receptus.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

David Cloud has a lot of good information. His website is WayofLife.org.

Anyway, in my view, the Modern Bible Movement is easily disproven because of their employed deception on multiple occasions, its liberalism, and compromise with Catholicism, and Unitarianism. The Modern Bible Movement today is traced back to 1881. The KJV and its line is traced back to the Waldenses and their Bible and they can in turn be traced back to the apostles. So the church always had the perfect words of God at some point in time in history.

The NKJV is a fake KJV or Trojan horse done by people who did not favor the Textus Receptus. The KJVER Translation would be better (Although you do have to ignore its suggested definitions that favor Critical Text Bibles). Nick Sayers also has a New Testament KJV that was put out in 2023. This would be better, as well. Nick is open to revising it based on good Christian feedback. The NKJV folk had an agenda and they are not friendly to the original source texts. Then again, all of these should be supplements to the real deal (i.e. the KJV).

I would not be quick to trust the Critical Text side when they attack the KJV or the TR. Yes, it is good to get our facts right, but they have an agenda to push their corrupted texts and or false philosophies and they are not looking to trust in a settled or perfect text like the KJV. Granted, if you like the idea of a shape shifter text that you can mold and change yourself and you do not want the precise words of God, then nothing I say here will really matter. I simply believe God preserved His word perfectly because that is what the Bible teaches. The KJV is the best candidate. It’s just that simple. Yes, the archaic language is a challenge. But that is what dictionaries and other translations are for. The key is to not re-write the KJV because we do not like what it says or because we do not understand it. Many times what we think is an error in the Bible is not an error. God tests our faith. I know this by experience.

Sorry but I'm not willing to invest over 3 hours of listening to a one sided argument. I prefer listening to a balanced presentation that takes all the facts into consideration. Our Aussie friend only speaks about half truths, a bit of a shame actually.

 

[Christian Soldier]

This ministry is in favor of the Critical Text and not the Textus Receptus. They obviously have a bias. Why? Because folks like the idea of being liberal with the text. They like the idea of a shape shifter Bible that they can twist at times. No thank you. I am not a novice to this subject. I have come up with 150 reasons for the King James Bible. I have defended the KJV as the Word of God since 2012.

The Critical Text side distort the facts. They make up stuff about Erasmus, etcetera. While I am sure they may tell the truth sometimes, I don’t trust them because they have lied many times to defend their Critical Text agenda. Why would they do that? Well, there is big money in Modern Bibles. Modern Scholars would be out of a job if they started to promote George Vance Smith as being a problem or if they started to tell the truth about Erasmus and the history of the KJV.

I get wat you're saying, but from my point of view I don't see one's personal preference of KJV or NKJV as being a deal breaker in any respect.

Both versions communicate the gospel message loud and clear, and that's the main message in the entire bible.
All the other subjects are subornment to the gospel anyway, the entire Bible is about Jesus and His Gospel. So we might be making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Nowhere did I state that the Bible is not God’s Word. I disagreed with the article on the grounds that they favor the Majority Text, which is not a settled text. The Byzantine manuscripts are generally in agreement with the KJV but they are not our final word of authority because they never have been made into a Bible today that has any kind of influence in the church.



Right, my point exactly. I believe that the words of God exist perfectly with the Jews and the apostles. Then it existed perfectly with the Waldenses and their Vetus Latina Scriptures Then it existed perfectly after them with the King James Bible. The Modern Bible Movement while it can lead people to salvation, it can also lead people quickly back out of the faith, as well. The Modern Bibles can even help in our understanding of the archaic wording in the KJV, but they should never be a replacement for the KJV because Modern Bibles clearly teach false doctrines in many places.

That response was for a member named St. SteVen, I know you take scripture seriously so that would never apply to you. But the other member has a flippant attitude towards Gods Word. He made out that the book revelation is the only book we should take seriously and the other 65 books don't matter much.

 

[Christian Soldier]

So you don’t even know? Is there anything in history that shows the hand of God upon these manuscripts?

I don't think any of the original manuscripts, survived the ravages of time. So if you're referring to physical evidence of the hand of God on the manuscripts we have today, I would say we don't have anything to show the hand of God upon them.

 

[Deborah_]

You are not a Greek speaking expert

Actually, I do know Greek. The word in question is porneia - and it means all kinds of sexual immorality, not just fornication. And to confine the meaning in Matthew 5:32 to sex before marriage makes no sense in the context.

Incidentally, in any language, meaning is determined by usage, not etymology.

The word “Godhead” appears three times in the KJV and it means Trinity in context.

And yet there is no Greek word that means 'Godhead', so what is it that they were actually translating?

The Johannine comma is famous/notorious for its absence from all ancient Greek manuscripts. Its lack of provenance makes it inadmissible as a proof-text even if you yourself believe that it's genuine. It wasn't in early editions of the Textus Receptus either, and German Bibles have never included it.
I haven't investigated a large number of modern Bibles, but in the NIV you will find a number of verses that clearly state Jesus' deity (e.g. John 1:18, Titus 2:13, II Peter 1:1)

Luke 1:15 in certain Modern Translations such as the CEV, GNT, ICB, PHILLIPS, MSG, NCV, NLV, and WE all basically say from the time of John the Baptist's birth, he will be filled with the Holy Ghost. This is unlike the KJB that correctly says he will be filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb. Being filled with the Spirit in the mother’s womb suggests John the Baptist is a living human being inside the mother. Today, some Christians believe in abortion because they don’t think the baby is alive inside the womb (Which is basically the murder of innocent babies). No doubt, Modern bibles like these could potentially lead a person to justify the murder of the innocent.

Well, the NIV should meet with your approval here then!
However, the different wording is hardly a licence for abortion. Does the Christian stance on abortion really hang on this one text? But those who want to justify abortion will do so anyway, whichever translation they use.

 

[Rockerduck]

The Johannine comma is famous/notorious for its absence from all ancient Greek manuscripts. Its lack of provenance makes it inadmissible as a proof-text even if you yourself believe that it's genuine. It wasn't in early editions of the Textus Receptus either, and German Bibles have never included it.

Fyi, the Latin texts contain the Johannine comma. 98% of the Latin texts contain the Johannine comma. The Greek texts contained 10%. The King James scholars had the Latin and Greek, and Hebrew.

 

[amigo de christo]

The King James Version s missing too many important scriptures and it is estimated that there are about six thousand differences. These include numerous omissions, sometimes of entire verses (e.g., Matthew 12.47, 18.11; Luke 17.36; Acts 28.29; Romans 15.24), and often even more than this (e.g., Matthew 16.2,3; Mark 9.44,46; John 5.3,4; Acts 24.6–8).

Why hold to an inferior old version when, you can take advantage of the more complete modern version.

Yeah rather , men are adding things into it to try and pull and to lead us into another direction .
Folks have no idea how long progressives have been at work to remold christanity . a very long time indeed my friend .
Folks dont like something that is said so folks add too or take from it . They aint fooling this lamb .
I SEEN some of the stuff they put in and they themselves have also taken out .
I seen their footnotes and their commentaries too .
Men just doing what men have always loved to do . To form a god into their own image
one that will overlook and downplay their sins . One that might have some truths
but man it sure will twist things in order to justify man , NOT GOD .
I seen far too much my friend in these modern bibles and the stink of some of them goes beyond the clouds .
My advice , do an exodus from the modern and return to the older .

 

[Runningman]

The differences between the Beza 1598 Textus Receptus NT Greek (used for the KJV) and the Alexandrian manuscripts like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (Modern Versions past 1881) is subtly different but those small differences doctrinally are serious. Most do not care and they are not much into the Bible anyway. They think if you take the Bible too seriously it is an idol, which is not what idolatry is.



Yes, my point exactly.


Errors only exist in the eye of the beholder. There are many great apologetics for the KJV that are logical and sound. Somebody simply does not want a perfect Word sees what they desire to see.



That is simply not true. Candlesticks have a long history and their invention dates back to ancient times. The use of candles themselves can be traced back to at least 3000 BC in ancient Egypt and Crete. The Bible mentions candlesticks in several places, most notably in the construction of the Tabernacle and Temple in ancient Israel.

One of the earliest and most significant mentions is in the book of Exodus in the Old Testament. God instructed Moses on the construction of the Tabernacle, which included a golden lamp-stand, often referred to as a candlestick (menorah in Hebrew). This is detailed in Exodus 25:31-40.

The menorah has continued to be a significant symbol throughout Jewish history, representing light, wisdom, and divine inspiration. Its image can be found on ancient coins, mosaics, and other artifacts dating from the Second Temple period (516 BCE to 70 CE) and beyond. The menorah remains a powerful symbol in Judaism today, often seen in synagogues and on ceremonial objects.

Here is a picture of the ancient Jewish Menora.

Early menorahs used oil because the candlestick was not invented until the 17th century. So when they were using menorahs in the 2nd century BC candlesticks didn't exist yet.

By the way, I wasn't looking to get pulled into a dishonest debate with you where you deny all the proof and I chase you around trying to change your mind. No thank you. I am simply informing you of a fact regarding candlesticks and the KJV's translation error on that point.

Don't worry, the matter about candlesticks isn't a problem. The KJV was translated by people and people make mistakes, but this issue doesn't really cause a significant issue with the Scripture. There are a number of others errors in the KJV as well, but I don't think you'll listen. Anyway, you can enjoy the KJV still; I do!

 

[Runningman]

Arianism is actually more problematic than you imagine. There are references in history from many different sources that state that they destroyed the original Scriptures and replaced it with their own corrupt versions. Some other Arians did have the uncorrupted Scriptures that contained the Comma in 1 John 5:7. For example, t the Council of Carthage, 460 bishops testified to the Comma and the Arians cut their tongues out (even despite the fact the Comma was in their Scriptures). But a miracle took place. They were able to still speak after and confess of the truth. Some Arians were even worse and killed Trinitarians, and burned down their homes. So there is a dark history involving Arianism.

George Vance Smith was a Unitarian and he rejoiced in the Revised Version. This was the first Modern Bible as a part of the Modern Bible Movement today. The problem is that the Modern Bible Movement is also filled with Catholicism, liberalism, and Spiritism, too. This is not an empty claim by any means. Catholic ideas can be seen in Modern Bibles and yet they are not present in the KJV. Top scholars like Bruce Metzger were liberal. Westcott and Hort were into Spiritism, and other Bible translators in the Modern Bible Movement have also talked to spirits. In fact, some of them talked to the spirits to help make their Modern Bible. So it is more than just Unitarianism that is the problem in the Modern Bible Movement. The list of problems goes on and on.

This post reads like you just want to smear and defame all of the people who are opponents of the Trinitarians while sweeping the sins of the Catholics and Protestants under the rug. This post lacks full disclosure and is akin to a hit piece. The Trinitarians have a dark, bloody, and violent history and their doctrines of "one God in three persons" is not even stated in Scripture.

 

[St. SteVen]

There is no Majority Text.

You have no idea what the term "Majority Text" even means. Obviously. You should read that article.

God would obviously provide His Word that would be perfect for His church and it would not be lost.

Obviously?
The Bible was humankind's idea, not God's idea. What could go wrong?

]

 

[St. SteVen]

It looks like you don't believe that the Holy Bible is Gods Word

Not in the way you claim. Every word god-breathed? Why does the word Easter appear in the KJV?

so the Bible came from God, regardless of your opinions.

That saw cuts both ways. My opinion against yours.

Your opinion doesn't change the truth at all.

Neither does yours.

So if you don't believe that the Bible is Gods Word, I would venture to say we don't believe on the same God.

Or not the same definition of God. I agree. You should probably be ashamed of your view of God. But I'll need more info to make my point.

The God I believe in is almighty, so His Word didn't fail to reach His target audience.

The idea that God "wrote" the Bible is a HUGE assumption. Why are the Gospels named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, if God wrote them? Have you heard of Gospel Q?

If it did fail as you suggest, then I don't believe in a God who fails in anything He sets out to achieve. The God I believe in always wins in all things.

That is such a western view. - LOL
Win, win, win...


]