[replaced]

I John 5:8 is not found in a single greek manuscript before the 16th century, but it is found in the KJV. What I tell you is the truth.

For some reason, the following verses in the KJV are not in other bibles.

matthew 17:21
matthew 18:11
matthew 23:14
mark 7:16
mark 9:44
mark 9:46
mark 11:26
mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24
1 John 5:7-8

There are also words in verses that the KJV has that other bibles do not. And words in verses that are missing in the KJV and are present in other bibles. So what might be the cause of this?

The new testament of the KJV is translated from the textus receptus, which was made up of six greek manuscripts. Even the six manuscripts that the textus receptus used did not even have the last 6 lines of revelations, so they used the vulgate to get those last six lines. And even the six greek manuscripts by themselves are all different.

We now now have thousands of manuscripts, dead sea scroll, and thousands of lectionaries. So if the textus receptus contains verses or words not seen in the other thousands of manuscripts, would you still consider it a valid source?

Let's not forget to mention the different grammer the greeks used. We enjoy being able to say sinning, sinned, sin. But the greeks just have sin as a verb. There is no "ing" or "ed" to add at the end of words. All words were written without information known about present/past tense, the bibles we see including the KJV add it (except YLT which assumes all present tense).

And assuming that we know the exact definition of words from greek is crazy. The KJV translates a single greek word to more than 40 different english words. Just a warning for those reading bible verses alone without reading the entire chapter.

[Lisa H]

The King James Bible 1611 version is the only real Bible.

I hope that answers your question.

[replaced]

Originally Posted by Lisa H

The King James Bible 1611 version is the only real Bible.

I hope that answers your question.

I do think that the KJV was made by believers. During a vote on how to make the ESV, there was a vote on whether or not it would be gender neutral, there was just 1 vote more in favor of it not being gender neutral! Just tells you that even the translators for modern bibles suck!

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Please take a look at my sermon on the subject of "how can we tell which Bible version is the one TRUE Word of God" here.

Also, please make a thread of your own in the "Introductions" section of the forum, so that we can properly greet you. Tell us about yourself, your church, and how you came to find Jesus.

And if you're here to flame us, better take a look at THIS before making an even bigger ass out of yourself.

[Lisa H]

Originally Posted by replaced

I do think that the KJV was made by believers. During a vote on how to make the ESV, there was a vote on whether or not it would be gender neutral, there was just 1 vote more in favor of it not being gender neutral! Just tells you that even the translators for modern bibles suck!

Why would you think the King James Bible was not written by believers.

Why would there be an issue for the Bible to be gender neutral. When speaking of someone, it is correct to refer them as being male or female.

I would agree that people who manipulate the Bible destroy the the Word of God are wrong

[Levi Jones]

Originally Posted by replaced

I do think that the KJV was made by believers. During a vote on how to make the ESV, there was a vote on whether or not it would be gender neutral, there was just 1 vote more in favor of it not being gender neutral! Just tells you that even the translators for modern bibles suck!

And what is wrong with being gender specific? Would you prefer something like this?

14And Adam was not deceived, but the person being deceived was in the transgression.
15Notwithstanding the person shall be saved in childbearing, if that person continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

[replaced]

Originally Posted by Levi Jones

And what is wrong with being gender specific? Would you prefer something like this?

I gave the wrong impression, I did say that modern translators suck because it was almost voted for the ESV to be gender neutral. And then there is an ESV apocrypha version. All about money nowadays and pleasing different groups to sell more books. I'm looking into those examples of why KJV is the correct translation, but for now I still think that ESV is hands down better than KJV.

[Levi Jones]

Originally Posted by replaced

I John 5:8 is not found in a single greek manuscript before the 16th century, but it is found in the KJV. What I tell you is the truth.

For some reason, the following verses in the KJV are not in other bibles.

matthew 17:21

It's in the ASV and the YLT as well. I noticed the NIV and other false Bibles skip directly from 20 to 22.

Why is that?

Originally Posted by replaced

matthew 18:11
matthew 23:14
mark 7:16
mark 9:44
mark 9:46
mark 11:26
mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24
1 John 5:7-8

All of these are in the ASV and the YLT as well.

Originally Posted by replaced

There are also words in verses that the KJV has that other bibles do not. And words in verses that are missing in the KJV and are present in other bibles. So what might be the cause of this?

Maybe they are not God's divinely inspired Word?

Originally Posted by replaced

The new testament of the KJV is translated from the textus receptus, which was made up of six greek manuscripts. Even the six manuscripts that the textus receptus used did not even have the last 6 lines of revelations, so they used the vulgate to get those last six lines. And even the six greek manuscripts by themselves are all different.

Perhaps you are claiming that God is so weak that He cannot control what is in the Bible?

Originally Posted by replaced

We now now have thousands of manuscripts, dead sea scroll, and thousands of lectionaries.

Yet none of those manuscripts are in total agreement with one another.

[Lisa H]

Originally Posted by replaced

I gave the wrong impression, I did say that modern translators suck because it was almost voted for the ESV to be gender neutral. And then there is an ESV apocrypha version. All about money nowadays and pleasing different groups to sell more books. I'm looking into those examples of why KJV is the correct translation, but for now I still think that ESV is hands down better than KJV.

Have you read the pages prefacing the Bible. THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY and the THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER

[Phebe Carlyle]

Originally Posted by replaced

I gave the wrong impression, I did say that modern translators suck because it was almost voted for the ESV to be gender neutral. And then there is an ESV apocrypha version. All about money nowadays and pleasing different groups to sell more books. I'm looking into those examples of why KJV is the correct translation, but for now I still think that ESV is hands down better than KJV.

What you "think" is irrelevant.

The new versions have come up with some dangerous changes to the scriptures. The Lord God gives us stern warnings about changing His Word--

Revelation 22:18-19, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Proverbs 30:5-6, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.


The KJV1611 has been proven to be the only CORRECT Bible.

Case Closed.

YIC

Mrs Phebe Dewitt.

[replaced]

Originally Posted by Levi Jones

Maybe they are not God's divinely inspired Word?

It does not say in the bible that people can create scriptures by copying other scriptures.

So in the KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 says
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

The word given instead says breathed out by god in most other translations (and supported by the thousands of scriptures / direct translation of koine greek.) I believe that this refers only to the original document/gospel that was made.

Originally Posted by Levi Jones

Perhaps you are claiming that God is so weak that He cannot control what is in the Bible?

The bible doesn't say that god controls what is in the bible. It even took a while to get all those scriptures together in to the one book (consisting of 27 books). If god controlled what was in "the bible", why are there many variations? If god controlled what was in "the bible", what's with the mistakes scribes made?

Originally Posted by Levi Jones

Yet none of those manuscripts are in total agreement with one another.

Same with the manuscripts that the KJV is based off of. But if 99% of the manuscripts say this and 1% say otherwise, then we go with what the 99% of manuscripts say. Also looking at the manuscripts origins are important as well, since a mistake early on can go on to many other manuscripts. The ESV consists of looking at hundreds of manuscripts (along with dead sea scrolls), to help take out the mistakes. KJV is based on 6 basically.

[replaced]

Originally Posted by Mrs. Phebe Dewitt

Revelation 22:18-19, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Proverbs 30:5-6, Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Just because if a man adds/removes from the words of the book does not mean that the KJV is the correct translation. For all we know, the one's who made the KJV might be in hell. But this is only if you take the interpretation that they meant adding/removing from the written bible and not about belief.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Originally Posted by replaced

Just because if a man adds/removes from the words of the book does not mean that the KJV is the correct translation. For all we know, the one's who made the KJV might be in hell. But this is only if you take the interpretation that they meant adding/removing from the written bible and not about belief.

Have you read my sermon yet?

[Levi Jones]

Originally Posted by replaced

It does not say in the bible that people can create scriptures by copying other scriptures.

So in the KJV 2 Timothy 3:16 says
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

The word given instead says breathed out by god in most other translations (and supported by the thousands of scriptures / direct translation of koine greek.) I believe that this refers only to the original document/gospel that was made.

Considering Paul was writing before the Gospels were written, I would think he is referring to the Old Testament, but at the same time Paul was very stringently anti-OT in many verses.

Originally Posted by replaced

The bible doesn't say that god controls what is in the bible. It even took a while to get all those scriptures together in to the one book (consisting of 27 books). If god controlled what was in "the bible", why are there many variations? If god controlled what was in "the bible", what's with the mistakes scribes made?

I don't know. Why don't you tell me? Are you claiming that the Bible is not inerrant? Your arguments positively reek of a well-informed atheist.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Originally Posted by replaced

Same with the manuscripts that the KJV is based off of. But if 99% of the manuscripts say this and 1% say otherwise, then we go with what the 99% of manuscripts say. Also looking at the manuscripts origins are important as well, since a mistake early on can go on to many other manuscripts. The ESV consists of looking at hundreds of manuscripts (along with dead sea scrolls), to help take out the mistakes. KJV is based on 6 basically.

Friend, we could go on for the next year nitpicking each manuscript for inaccuracies, but it still won't change the fact that the KJV is still the best by far, followed by the ASV and then Young's.

[Lisa H]

Originally Posted by replaced

Just because if a man adds/removes from the words of the book does not mean that the KJV is the correct translation. For all we know, the one's who made the KJV might be in hell. But this is only if you take the interpretation that they meant adding/removing from the written bible and not about belief.

If you had read the "THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER" you would see two sections which will help in your answer;

1. The speeches and reasons, both of our brethren, and of our adversaries, against this work
2. A satisfaction to our brethren

[Lisa H]

@Replaced

Here is an extract from the "THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER"

The purpose of the Translators, with their number, furniture, care, &c.
But it is high time to leave them, and to shew in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held, in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk; ) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark. To that purpose there were many chosen, that were greater in other men’s eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise.