The Preserved Perfect Word of God
1. Introduction: God's Perfect Word
2. Common Objections Answered
3. List of Bible Articles
1. Introduction: God's Perfect Word
Some people often wonder and ask the question: does it matter which
translation of the Bible do we read? What's the point of this debate?
Why do so many people stick with the King James Bible which was first
released in 1611, some 400 years ago, and not get on with the times and
go with the shiny better English Standard Version? Or the immensely
popular New International Version? In fact, why does this even matter?
Before we begin, as honest Christians, we should ask the simply
question: do we believe that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired,
infallible, and preserved Word of God? If your answer is yes, then your
central authority regarding all matters of faith and doctrine should
come from the Bible, right? If we also believe in the preservation of
the Scriptures on this earth, then ask yourself this: where would I find
it? Where do I find the preserved Word of God today right here on this
earth? If you cannot answer this honestly, then you cannot say you
believe that God preserved His perfect Word here on this earth, and that
you'll never find it.
This is what one can call a "Bible agnostic": he says there is a perfect
Bible but cannot pinpoint where or what it is. Usually people who hold
the KJV-Onlyist position are often attacked by critics, as they're not
happy with the truth, which is by nature, singular. While it is
perfectly okay for Christians to accept that there is only one way to
heaven by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, why then is it so
difficult to believe that the Word (Jesus) can also be one single truth
and not manifest in what seemingly seems like many different valid ways?
Why also do the opponents not take into factor that if the devil can
indeed corrupt churches (Revelation 2-3) that he can also corrupt the
word of God (2 Corinthians 2:17) out of malicious intent? Those are some
questions an honest Christian should ask himself before attacking what
looks to be an outlandish stance, but just like salvation is very easy
but hard for many to believe at the same time, so too is the truth
readily available.
What makes me and many other people so sure that the KJV is in fact the
word of God in the English language? Let's go over some of its features
in comparison to the modern Bible translations and what makes it so
special to stand out amongst all the other Bible translations out there.
God promised to preserve His words
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Matthew 24:35
As we read in Psalm 12:6-7, God promised to preserve His Words. Okay, so
maybe you are using a modern Bible and you're not seeing that rendition.
Okay then. What about Matthew 5:18? Matthew 24:35? How about the fact
that in Psalms 138:2 God says that He magnified His word above His name?
What about the warning at the end of Revelation 22:18-19 about tampering
with God's Words? Don't you think then God would preserve His Words and
said it many times throughout the Bible? People often forget about the
preservation aspect of God's Words, and that means that there must
be the inerrant infallible perfect preserved Word of God someplace on
this earth.
It has to be the King James Bible as all the other Bibles fall short and
are a babel of confusion. The KJV maintains every verses, clear wording,
and reads like the word of God should. On the contrary, modern Bibles
are sloppy, most of them are missing 16 whole verses, some of which are
doctrinally important (Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44,
9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37 15:34, 24:7,
28:29, Romans 16:24, big part of 1 John 5:7), casts doubts on whole
sections (Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11), changing the truth of God into
a lie.
The KJV was translated under a God fearing monarchy
Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
Ecclesiastes 8:4
Whether you like it or not, the only type of government that God has
sanctioned is a monarchy (Deuteronomy 17). God chooses the king to rule over the people,
and the preferred form of government in the millennium that is to come
and the one in heaven is a monarchy. Jesus is king of kings (1 Timothy
6:15, Revelation 1:5, Revelation 17:14, Revelation 19:16), and no true
Christians will deny this. King James was a Scottish king who grew up
with sound preaching from Christian ministers and believed in the
doctrine of biblical infallibility and the principles of Sola Scriptura.
Reading his own works (ex. Basilikon Doron) will show you what his
beliefs were and it is only fitting that a God fearing king would be the
one authorising this translation. A few places where he mentions his
personal faith can be found here:
But because no man was able to keepe the Law, nor any part thereof, it pleased God of his infinite wisedome and goodnesse, to incarnate his only Sonne in our nature, for satisfaction of his justice in his suffering for us; that since we could not be saved by doing, we might at least, bee saved by believing. (Basilikon Doron, 213)
Now, as to Faith, which is the nourisher and quickner of Religion, as I have already said, It is a sure perswasion and apprehension of the promises of God, applying them to your soule: and therefore may it justly be called the golden chaine that linketh the faithfulle soule to Christ: And because it groweth not in our garden, but is the free gift of God, as the same Apostle saith, it must be nourished by prayer, Which is nothing else, but a friendly talking with God. (Basilikon Doron, 214)
God would mightily use a king with such faith for a timeless beautiful
translation used and loved by many for centuries to come. All charges that he was a sodomite
comes primarily from an enemy of his, Anthony Weldon, many years after
his death, where, of course, the late king would not be able to defend
himself. These are all fabricated lies and character assassinations,
many which would continue even on to this day(see Stephen Coston's King James
VI of Scotland & I of England Unjustly Accused?).
Many modern Bibles are translated from the American Bible Society, which
also branched out along with the worldwide United Bible Societies. The
UK is no longer a God fearing nation, just as how Israel fell from
grace, but America, being a child of revolutionary principles, and
without a king, would not be the vehicle God would use to bring about
the English word of God. It would make much more sense for God to use a
God-fearing monarchy as opposed to the American republic, which was not
founded on godly principles but Masonic ones.
KJV has no copyright
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1
Tying to the above statement that
the KJV was translated in a monarchy, the KJV actually has no copyright: it is public domain and is free to
print anywhere, including the UK, even though its rights are vested in
the Crown. It does not forbid anyone to reprint the text, and the
original copyright was there in order for the printer to have the money
to publish it and to prevent private companies from tampering the word
of God into their own version. On the contrary, if you look at any modern Bibles, they
have a copyright, often to their publishers (Zondervan, Crossway, Thomas
Nelson Publishers, etc) and even have a limit on how many words you can
reproduce before paying royalties or such. What this proves is that
modern Bibles are works of men, not of God. God's words are not
copyrighted and are owned by God, who wills for His Word to be published
everywhere! Due to it being public domain, it is allowed to be printed
everywhere around the world for the purpose of evangelising, personal
use, etc, and often much cheaper than modern translations, which are
missing a lot of words and even verses, due to lack of copyright!
The translators were capable and had honest principles: modern
translators operate on a different worldview
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Psalm 138:2
The initial 56 translators of the KJV were experts of languages, including Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. One of them, Lancelot Andrews, spoke over 20 languages fluently, including some ancient languages such as Aramaic, Chaldean, Syriac, and Arabic! And this was just one of the other translators working on it! Not only were they experts at ancient languages, but they were also experts at English, which allowed them to convey the meaning of the texts they were translating perfectly into what we have today. Reading the Epistle Dedicatory and the Introduction to the Readers in front of the KJV, it is clear they believed they were handling the very words of God!
But now what piety without truth? what truth (what saving truth) without the word of God? what word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to search (John 5.39; Isa. 8.20). They are commended that searched and studied them (Acts 17.11 and 8.28, 29). They are reproved that were unskilful in them, or slow to believe them (Matt. 22.29; Luk. 24.25). They can make us wise unto salvation (2 Tim. 3.15). If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us. Take up and read, take up and read the Scriptures... Love the Scriptures, and wisdom will love thee.
The Translators to the Reader, KJV
Despite the fact their skills were much more proficient than any modern translators, they knew they had to handle this carefully and actually believed in what they were translating, even with their differences in theology. Miraculously, we do not see the KJV lean doctrinally in any particular direction, whether it be Calvinist or Arminian or Puritan. It just translates what the original manuscripts were writing. The italics you see in the KJV are words added in English to supply something that isn't there in the originals, to make it make sense in English. Anyone who is bilingual knows no language can translate to another 1:1 without changing some things around. If anything, this shows that the KJV translators were honest about what they were doing, and it was there to assist the English readers so it would make sense.
The Lord work a care and conscience in us to know Him and serve Him, that we may be acknowledged of Him at the appearing of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, to whom with the Holy Ghost, be all praise and thanksgiving. Amen.
The Translators to the Reader, KJV
Modern translators, however, are not only less capable than just a few
of these men alone but many of them did not even believe in the
inerrancy nor the inspiration of the Scriptures, such as Kurt Aland or
Bruce Metzger. The critical text going against the KJV was started by
two knaves named Westcott and Hort, who definitely did not believe in
the gospel nor the inerrancy of Scriptures. A Jesuit cardinal, Carlo
Martini, was also in charge of the translation committee for their
version of the Greek texts underlying the modern Bibles. They certainly
did not handle the Word of God with any care but according to their own
understandings. No matter how brilliant the modern scholars and
translators may look compared to the average person, they cannot even
compare to the KJV translators. None of them believe in a perfect
translation, and are still trying to reconstruct something as close to
the "originals" as much as possible. They will never be satisfied with
what they have, and will continue looking for manuscripts discovered in
caves or buried places, thinking it will shed light of new revelations
regarding God's words, without ever taking into consideration about
people who edited the texts for malicious intents. The NIV 1983 preface
itself says "Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by
imperfect man, this one undoubtedly falls short of its goals." This
shows that the translators themselves did not believe there is a perfect
word of God which exists on earth.
The KJV was translated under times of persecution
And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope: and hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
Romans 5:3-5
During these times, it was life threatening to be at the wrong side of
the religious spectrum, whether Catholic or Protestant, depending on the
monarch or the powers that be. When England was under the Catholic
monarch, Queen Mary I (Bloody Mary), she persecuted the Protestants
(most likely due to her father Henry VIII annulling his marriage to her
mother the Catholic Queen Catherine of Aragon), burning many families
simply for reading the Bible, something that was known amongst
the Protestants. When she died, her sister Elizabeth became queen, who
stood for the Protestant side, marking her and England as the enemy of
the Roman Catholics, who did not want anyone to read the Bible and made
them their target. This was markedly clear when Elizabeth dies and her
Scottish cousin, James, becomes the next king of England.
The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was the Catholic plot to assassin King James
and restore the Catholic monarchy in England. So significant was this
plot that it is now a holiday in England, known as Guy Fawkes Night
(after one of the conspirators) or Bonfire Night, where they burnt
effigies of the Pope. England would remain the enemy of the Catholics,
whose intrigues still continued even after James' death. The English
forbade any Catholics from ever ascending their throne. Even in spite
of the dangers that England would go through, the king and the
translators still managed to produce the best English translation of
God's Word.
As we read in the Bible, the church is best while under duress and
persecution. Modern Bibles, on the contrary, are translated in a
relatively comfortable setting with strangely even the Catholics in
their translation committee, and even non-believers! Isn't it strange
that the Catholics were persecuting and killing people simply for owning
the Bible and now they're actively part of the translation committees?
Interesting. Reading the introduction to the eclectic Greek New
Testament the Nestle-Aland 27th edition's introduction, we see a
disturbing claim.
The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text (in the sense of the century-long Nestle tradition): it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament.
Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th edition, Introduction, 45
The Greek text underlying our modern Bibles today are all part of an ecumenical agenda to bring together many different religions into one, regardless of what the actual text says. Being directed by the Vatican taking over the Bible societies around the world, this will definitely change how the text works.
Good fruits were produced: there is no modern bias in the KJV unlike
in modern Bibles
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
1 Corinthians 14:33
The church was at its peak during some 200 years with many godly
preachers and a lot of soulwinning took place. Mission field and
evangelising was at an all time high, and great pastors preached
solely from the KJV as there was no other Bible versions for Bible
believing Christians until recently. In fact, it was just called Holy
Bible and everyone knew the Good Book was the KJV, taken to all parts of
the world as European powers spread all around the world, and people
converted and believed. Even in our times where there are many other
Bible versions out there, the KJV is recognised as the golden standard
of Bibles even by nonbelievers.
Meanwhile, the modern Bibles have only produced confusion. It has only
made people not know whether the Word of God is preserved nor if it is
even perfect. Doctrines have become weaker, liberal fun centres that
pass as churches in our times have proliferated, and more and more of
these versions come out catering to different groups all for filthy
lucre's sakes. You will find it very difficult to find saved people in
those NIV churches, let alone anyone with sound doctrines, nor winning
souls to Christ, while those who use the KJV are a lot more likely to go
out and win more souls as they know they should teach all nations and
not 'make disciples' and believe the longer ending of Mark is canonical
unlike many modernist pastors or professors.
One can clearly see the spiritual decline of the world when looking at
the span of history, especially for the Christians. Ecumenicalism was
not a thing, as the Catholics were out to kill the Protestants. Liberal
theology developed much later, especially in German academies, where
they may teach strange doctrines such as the Bible isn't the inspired
word of God and that the Holy Spirit isn't a
thing! The theory of evolution took flight later and cast doubts on how to interpret
Genesis and how God created the world. More and more we see different
Bible translations specifically catering to different groups, such as
the 'gender neutral crowd' being appeased with the NRSV, or the
theologically liberal being happy with how the RSV replaces 'virgin'
with 'young woman' in Isaiah 7:14, totally destroying the whole meaning
of the miracle of the virgin birth! The KJV was free from such biases
and were translated by men who knew they were handling the word of God.
Every modern Bibles compare themselves against the KJV, often
attacking it
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32
It is funny that the other Bible versions usually don't compare themselves against each other, even though there are a lot of differences. The King James is often the gold standard for a Bible translation, and for a good reason. This is especially true with Jesus, the Word, when he came to this world, which united every powers, left and right (Herodians and the chief priests), theological enemies (Saduccees and the Pharisees), political rivals (Herod and Pilate), who were often enemies to each other to all go and attack the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the same in our case, as these false modern perversions, despite their many disagreements, often compare themselves to the KJV and how much "better" they are in their own words. It just shows that they are afraid of the KJV, which actually has power, for being the Word of God. If what happened to the actual Word was what we see today with the Word of God, why should we trust these vain scribes and other enemies of God? We should remember that Christians are not of this world (John 17:16), the world hates Christ (John 15:18), and that Satan is the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4). The constant attacks on the KJV is relentless, with books and many so-called professed Christian scholars of reputation such as James White or Daniel Wallace attacking it, when the usual "default" persuasion of the average Christian would be "every Bible translation is acceptable" that it often looks fanatical. Whether it is "unreliable manuscripts" or "too hard to read" or "doesn't stand up to scholastic scrutiny", there are many excuses made to attack the KJV by its enemies.
The manuscript evidence heavily favours the KJV over modern
translations, also casts doubts on veracity of Scriptures
For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.
Psalm 119:89
The manuscript evidence heavily favours the KJV over modern
translations, also casts doubts on veracity of Scriptures.
Funnily enough, the modern Bibles are heavily based off of a textual
family consisting of minority readings, which just happens to be the
oldest family they have found, or so they claim. The textual tradition
which underlies the KJV, the Byzantine texts, have over 5000 manuscripts
supporting its readings. These are called the Majority Text, and over
95% of all manuscripts actually support the readings found in the KJV!
The Alexandrian texts are the ones typically found in Egypt, and the two
chief manuscripts that the modern Bibles are based off of are Codex
Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both of which don't even agree with each
other and are filled with many omissions, revisions, and a lot of
confusion overall. It also includes various other non-biblical texts,
such as the Apocrypha and works like the Shepherd of Hermas. Somehow,
all these learned scholars chose the tiny disagreeing manuscripts'
readings over the majority texts' readings and it came into our modern
Bibles in various languages today! That is insanity!
This is also why certain passages, such as the woman caught in adultery
(John 7:53-8:11), or the longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), are
thought to not belong in the Bible by modern preachers and scholars.
They take this from the textual evidence from those two bad manuscripts
because it's the "oldest" they've found. The KJV does not cast doubts
with footnotes or anything and includes every passages without any
apology. Modern Bibles also change the readings, remove verses, and
attack the divinity of Jesus Christ in almost every opportunity it can
get. 1 Timothy 3:16, for example, replaces "God" with "He", which was a
key passage talking about Jesus being God manifest in the flesh. This is
all because of the two codices vs the 5000+ others.
Legacy and Popularity
David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.
Mark 12:37
I do not really like using the popularity argument, but the KJV has
withstood the trials of time, continues to be relevant even now in 2021,
and is still being used by good preachers and many missionaries and is
still the most popular translation of all times, even known by secular
people to be THE translation to quote from. All the other modern Bibles
will often have many derivatives, and many of them will pass away since
they are not God's words, which will never pass away (Matthew 24:35).
The ever changing modern Bibles are unstable and have no sure
foundation, wavering just like their translators in faith and stability,
while the KJV is standing on the rock, which is the fact that it is the
Word of God in English, and nobody has ever proved it wrong, and any
supposed contradictions can be answered, unlike the apparent weakness of
every modern Bible versions out there.
Conclusion
Now ask yourself the question: do you know for a fact you have the
perfect preserved Word of God in your hands? If not, perhaps what you
have isn't His Words? Get yourself a KJV Bible and you will see why it
is the Word of God.
2. Common Objections Answered
All Bibles are the same! They just have
different styles!
If you honestly believe this, then you have never really seen some of
the differences the Bibles have. In fact, why even print out different
Bible versions in the same language if they didn't have any differences?
Compared to the KJV, the modern Bibles are missing some 16 whole verses,
truncated another one (and many more), casts doubts on entire sections
("longer ending of Mark", "woman caught in adultery"), changes entire
verses which affects doctrine ("being saved" vs. "saved" in 1
Corinthians 1:18), amongst other things. If you are still not convinced,
go attend a Bible study where everyone is using different Bible
versions. It will probably surprise you that even the modern Bibles
don't agree with each other at places, and sometimes, even disagree with
themselves depending on which year edition they are using. Any honest
person will see that no, the Bible versions are NOT the same, and it
isn't just stylistic but actually doctrinal. God is not the author of
confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) and therefore it is impossible for all
of them to be the same Bible.
The KJV is outdated and hard to read because it uses old English! Why
do we need "thou" and "thee"? This is (the current
year) nobody speaks this way!
First of all, KJV is not written in old English. It is written in early
modern English and every single word you can find in the KJV can also be
found in an English dictionary. Yes, shambles is a butcher shop. Old
English would be Beowulf (look at it and tell me if that's anything like
the KJV). The people of Elizabethan England and the Jacobean era didn't
speak with thee and thou either. However, thee and thou are necessary to
preserve the accuracy of the manuscripts. Why is that? Thee and thou are
used as the 2nd person singular pronoun, while you and ye are the
plural. Notice how we say "you are", despite addressing either a
singular person or a whole group. The KJV seeks to accurately translate
who this addresses, and somehow English is one of the few languages that
do not differentiate the singular or plural for 2nd person in the
vernacular, but writing in thee and thou is essential and not even that
hard. If you're struggling with a four letter word and its inflections,
then it says a lot about your own intelligence. There is a difference
between how we speak and how eloquent, elevated, and beautiful the KJV
is written, which is beyond our crude common tongue. Rather than demand
the Bible, which is the word of God, be sunk into our level, should we
not try to get to the level of the Bible's English and learn it
ourselves by studying it diligently? You will also find a lot of
examples where the KJV, in fact, is simpler and easier to understand
than most modern Bibles.
The modern Bibles are translated from older and therefore more
reliable manuscripts! The KJV's manuscripts are more recent and
therefore could have been corrupted!
Another issue with the Bible versions is that the KJV is translated from
one manuscript tradition (what we call the Byzantine text family), and
the modern Bibles are translated from a corrupt family of manuscripts
called the Alexandrian. The Alexandrian texts are older, with the oldest
allegedly
from about 4th century A.D. However, to say that because it is older and
therefore more reliable is not only inaccurate, but completely ignores
the fact that corruption from workers of evil could happen even on the
same days Paul was penning the epistles to the Romans! 4th century is a
long time from Jesus' ascension, actually, and if anything, this proves
that those manuscripts were found in a workable condition because it was
junk to begin with so it was discarded. The more a person reads their
Bible, the more worn out it becomes until they replace it with a new
one. The Byzantine texts then, you could even consider that they were
preserved time after time after time from the originals. What's even
more interesting is that these older manuscripts are often in the
minority of the readings from the rest of the manuscripts: most of the
5000+ manuscripts largely agree with the Byzantine texts and are often
so-called "Majority Texts". Why listen to a few outlying manuscripts
which completely differ from the others just because it's the "oldest"?
It uses secular reasoning to apply crudely to the word of God. Even if
some of the modern Bibles can be "good translations", they are from the
wrong and bad family which are corrupted.
The original KJV contained the Apocrypha! Why would you, a Biblical
Christian who knows the Apocrypha is unscriptural, support a Bible that
had it in its initial release?
"...Is it a small corrupting of the Scriptures to make all, or the most part of the Apocrypha of equall faith with the canonicall Scriptures...?"
--King James VI & I, A Premonition to All Most Mightie Monarches
Yes, the original KJV had the Apocrypha. No, nobody but Catholics were
foolish enough to call it Scriptures. In fact, it was placed in a
separate section by itself away from the actual Scriptures for
historical purposes and not mixed in with the other Old Testament books,
unlike how the Catholics shuffle them in, deceptively making them look
like it is part of it. Even then, no edition of the KJV printed nowadays
even contains the Apocrypha unless they are specifically labelled to
contain it. What exactly was the point of that objection anyways?
What about people who speak different languages? Why should they try
to read the KJV?
Oh those poor, poor people who cannot read English! We have to show them
the light by giving them the ESV which is much easier to read! Or is it?
Common sense: we give people who don't know English the Bible which is
in their own language! We have some very good translations in other
languages, such as the Reina Valera 1909 for Spanish speakers (most
other RV except 1960 works), the Russian Synodal Bible of 1873, etc, so
long as they are using the same textual traditions which underlie the
KJV. For the countries that do not have one, they need to be translated
into that language from the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts,
although it is also possible to translate from the KJV as well. Also, as
a side note, due to the aforementioned "thou" and "you" distinction,
many foreigners have actually claimed that the KJV was much easier to
read than any of the other modern Bibles.
Just because I read the NIV doesn't make me unsaved! Why should I
switch to the KJV?
You're right. It's possible to get saved from those modern Bibles,
because Satan still left some of the essentials there before anyone
figures out that they're being deceived. Technically, if a modern Bible
has verses that say the same exact thing as the KJV, it is the same as
preaching from the KJV. In order to make a lie, you
have to mix it in amidst the truth to corrupt it. Reading the wrong
Bible isn't going to damn anyone as reading the Quran won't damn you
either, or by being in a stable makes you into a horse. However, due to
the many problems of the modern Bibles, its omissions, its changes, and
affected doctrines, why settle for that weak butter knife of an ESV when
you can use the mighty sword that is the KJV? Also, people simply don't
get saved by reading the Bible. They need the gospel preached to them by
a believer to have that seed planted on them. (Romans 10:14) The wrong
Bible though can and will lead people to doubt their faith due to its
internal issues. As developing Christians, we should desire to have the
meat of the Scriptures too and not just the milk. The more you dig
deeper, the more you will see that there is much to be desired when
reading the modern Bible versions.
Don't you believe that the KJV can correct the original Hebrew and
Greek manuscripts? Aren't you making a paper Pope out of the KJV Bible?
How can I take you seriously?
As with any other movements, there will always be ones who call
themselves part of our fold, but are in fact extremists who believe in
an entirely different idea and are not our brethren and in fact make us
look bad. There are people who follow the likes of Peter Ruckman, often
called the Ruckmanites, who do take this too far, as to say that the
English KJV is the only valid translation and that it can even correct
the original Hebrew and Greek, or that the orthography of certain words
will matter, that the KJV translators were re-inspired to get a new
revelation to translate to the KJV, amongst other ridiculous claims. We
do not believe that. We simply believe that the KJV is the inerrant,
preserved, and the perfect Word of God in English, amongst others of the
same textual traditions in different languages, and it is merely a
translation of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.
Where was the Bible before 1611 then? Why would God wait 1611 years
after Jesus' birth to give the world a perfect Bible then?
We believe the KJV is perfect in English and has no need for another
trial of purification. King James Bible had six predecessors (Tyndale,
Coverdale, Matthews, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishops'), and all of them
were good, but not the perfect and final form which was the KJV.
Incidentally, Psalm 12:6 talks about silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times. Seventh time is the perfection and that would be
the KJV if we thought about it this way. It's not like the people were
waiting for a Bible to come out 1600 years after Christ: it was always
there in one form or another. God used the English to produce this
translation because it will be the British who will have the greatest
empire of the world in the next few centuries, and English has pretty
much become the lingua franca (common language) as a result of their
colonialism, so it was within divine providence. Before that the Hebrews
had God's revelation so the Old Testament is written in Hebrew, the New
Testament was written in Greek as that was the common tongue of the
Roman Empire during those times, then Latin, and we see various other
translations in neighbouring countries such as the Syriac Peshitta, etc.
Keep in mind the period between the end of Old Testament and the birth
of Jesus Christ was about 400 years! God has been silent for that long
then as well, so what makes it hard to believe that the English Bible
could come much later? God's Words were always there in one way or
another: it did not have to be unearthed some 1800 years later to be
made known to the world. In fact, I think the same question should go to
the Critical Text defenders: can you believe God's Words has been buried
under the earth and obscure caves for such a long time and now we have
finally have the truth?
Do you not believe that the Bible can be translated better at all in
the future?
There's some things that can be changed in the KJV rendering sure, such
as some archaic words, and certainly some phrases can be phrased
differently and still carry the same meaning. Thees and thous are not
part of this though (see above). However, in our day and age I highly
doubt such rendition would come out, and the KJV is already good enough
as it is for English speakers. In fact, not only does it capture the
meaning and the words beautifully, it also reads much better and higher
than any English works out there simply because it is the Word of God.
Every word in the Bible can be found in the dictionary. If you're from
the UK, a lot of the words and phrases may be more apparent to you.
Let's not fix what isn't broken: you'll get bastardisations such as the
"New King James Version" or the "Modern English Version". Also the KJV
and its underlying texts can be translated to other languages as well.
KJV had many multiple reprints until 1769! And at one time it was
called the Wicked Bible too!
If we're being honest about this, indeed there were multiple reprints of
the King James Bible since 1611 all the way to 1769, but any people who
see what was actually being changed was the font face and the
orthography. There were actually only four revisions of the Authorised
Verison: 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. They were not new translations, but
revisions. 1629's edition was to fix printing errors, as printing was a
very labourious task in those days. 1638 continued that same endeavour.
The final two revisions, 1762 and 1769, dealt with orthographical
reforms (spelling). It may surprise you that languages can evolve, and so does
writing systems. The actual word that was translated, however, never
changed, and typos and printing errors were often amended. Speaking of
the Wicked Bible, this was because a printed edition of the KJV printed
out "thou shalt commit adultery", omitting the prohibitive "not". The
printer was jailed since this happened way too frequently and this is
not how you handle the word of God. Also, the few 'differences' one can
find amongst the various 'different KJVs' will find that none of them
change the meaning at all and people who pick on those usually do it
just to destroy the KJV's credibility without actually seeing what's
been 'changed'.
In the modern Bibles, however, actual versions after
different years do, in fact, change the words. An example is the 2011 NIV in Mark 1:41, where Jesus was "indignant" instead of
"compassionate" to the blind man, or the 2016 ESV, where the controversial Genesis 3:16
"your desire will be contrary to your husband" rendition was chosen,
each disagreeing with their former editions. The KJV, we can be assured,
will do no such thing, and the one we have is essentially the 1769
version, but it's not any different from the 1611 in any meaningful way.
The multiple reprints charge, if anything, should be on the modern
Bibles.
Well my pastors, my seminary professors, and all these other
respectable men of faith tell me King James Onlyism is an indefensible
position and that I should get along with the rest of the world and use
what I like! You think you know more than all of them?
Can your faith leaders attest that they believe in a current existent
perfect word of God? We ought to listen to God rather than men (Acts
5:29), and if you are so easily swayed by the uneducated opinions of
mere men rather than reading and hearing what the Word of God actually
says, then you really need to question if you are being honest at this
point. Even if your seminary professors or your acclaimed "doctors of
theology" are very well read and can probably articulate better than
most of us, what's the point of that when they are simply wrong in this
matter and we are right? Jesus himself had to deal with many learned
scribes of his times and they were wrong as well. This is called the
tyranny of the scholars, which permeates nearly any fields to suppress
any opposition (such as evolutionists in the field of science where they
don't belong), but no matter what one does to try and suppress it, truth
will always prevail. Whether you like it or not, there will always be
adherents to the KJV or other good Bibles of its same manuscript
traditions, and honestly searching the history of how the Bibles were
translated, and which parties were around, and why KJV-Onlyism is
attacked by every sides, you cannot honestly come to the conclusion the
other Bibles are right. In fact, the very reason for the existence of
other Bible versions is that they believe they will never be perfect but
try to get close to the "originals" as much as possible! Ask your
pastors or your professors if they believe that the Bible they are using
is perfect. That alone should tell you everything.
You're a conspiracy theorist for thinking people would corrupt the
word of God! God promised to preserve His Words you said!
Am I wrong in insinuating that the modern churches have been washed down
in their theology and led many people astray? Was Paul worrying in vain
when he wrote in 2 Corinthians 2:17 of the many who corrupt the gospel?
God did promise to preserve His Words but it doesn't mean various false
editions are not around. When Jesus came into this world and proclaimed
his ministry as the Christ, were there not other false Christs around?
Calling something a conspiracy theory when the truth is evident means
you are afraid to face the truth. There are actually people who directly
serve Satan and those who are willing to edit the word of God to their
own delight and not by innocent mistakes. A careful study of the many
changes in the modern Bibles will clearly show you these changes are not
accidental but calculated and devious plans to lead many people into
confusion and deny the inerrancy and the inspiration of the Scriptures.
We are fighting against devils here (Ephesians 6:12), not flesh and
blood. They are much more cleverer than the man, and to say that the
devil has no power against us is deceiving yourself from the truth! With
that said, yes, I do believe there is a conspiracy by the devil and his
lackeys to corrupt the word of God and get people to be led astray,
among the millions of other ways to drag people into hell. Get right
with God and use His true Words, the KJV.
You actually believe the KJV is better than the other Bibles? Even
perfect?
Why yes I do. Now please tell me which Bible you put your faith on, if
you can, or if you even believe in the perfect Word of God.
How Difficult Is the KJV to Read?
WIP
Comparison of the Bible Versions
WIP
Removed Bible Verses WIP
Supposed 'Errors' in KJV Answered WIP
Biblical Difficulties WIP
The Hebrew and Greek Text Underlying the KJV
WIP
What About the Septuagint? WIP
What About the Apocrypha? WIP
The Men Behind the Modern
Translations WIP
Back to Top
