The KJB is Perfect

Discussion in 'Bible, Doctrine, and Other Topics' started by CodyKJV, Mar 26, 2008.

  1. CodyKJV

    CodyKJV Member

    Why the King James Bible is the Word of God

    The other day I went to Wal-Mart and noticed something strange. There is hardly any King James Bibles on the book shelves. All I see anymore is the NIV, NKJV and all the other new versions. A lot of people will tell you that those new versions are just the same, but easier to read. Whoever tells you that is either a liar or they do not know what is going on.

    The new versions are not just the same. They take away and add not only words, but complete verses! Read below in Luke 4:4 and guess what part the NIV takes out, ?but by every word of God.? The devil is watering down the word of God with these new versions.

    Luke 4:4
    ?And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.? KJV

    I will use the NIV for example, since it is one of the most sold bible versions in America. The NIV takes away 64,576 words and 17 complete verses. Here is another shocker, in 1988 Zondervan and the NIV was purchased by HarperCollins Publishers. HarperCollins publishes pro-homosexual books and I do not even want to name off the names of the book titles. If you want to check it out, go to their publishers? website. Oh, and if that is not enough, HarperCollins also publishes a satanic bible! I could go on and on and expose those other new versions, but that would take forever. I will leave it up to you to study to see the major differences between the King James Bible and the new versions.

    The new ?bibles? take away the blood of Christ out of Colossians 1:4. They take away the word ?Lord? out of the dying thief?s mouth in Luke 23:42. In Isaiah 7:14, the new versions deny the virgin birth by replacing ?virgin? with ?young woman?. There are so many other examples that I could bring up, but it would take a too many pages to list them all. If you do not believe me, compare those above verses using the King James Bible and the NIV. The devil is using these new versions to destroy the truth in the word of God.

    Jeremiah 23:36
    ?..for ye have perverted the words of the living God..? KJV

    People often tell me that it is hard for them to read the King James Bible. Well, I am here to tell you that those new versions are not easier than the King James Bible. Tests have proved that the King James Bible is on a lower reading grade level than the new versions. There are a bunch of times where in the new versions it is hard to read, but in the King James Bible it is crystal clear. If you think the King James Bible is hard to read it is because you are too lazy to study the word of God. All you need to understand God?s Word is the Holy Spirit and some of your time, not a new ?bible?.

    Proverbs 8:8-9
    8 ?All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
    9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.? KJV

    I am sure there are people thinking, ?What about the originals?? There are no more originals. There are only copies of 100's of Greek texts and they all differ from each other. Greek ?scholars? will try to tell you that we need to go back to the Greek to get the true meaning. That is a lie, all you need to do to understand the Bible is to read it in the correct context that it is suppose to be read. Next time someone tells you to go to the Greek, tell them to go preach a whole sermon in Greek(I am sure they cannot). All they do is quote a couple of Greek words and try to act smart. They tell you what their teachers told them and I believe their putting more faith in their interpretation than they put in the word of God.

    Another reason I believe the King James Bible is the word of God is because the manuscripts that the translators used were from Antioch. Let us see what the Bible says about Antioch?

    Acts 11:26
    "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." KJV

    There is coincidence for you. The place where the King James Bible manuscripts are from is the same place where the first Christians originated. Maybe you are wondering about where the new versions get their texts. The new versions get their manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt. Let us read what the Bible says about that place?

    Deuteronomy 17:16-17
    16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
    17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." KJV

    How about that, God led people away from Egypt. If God led people away from Egypt, there is no way I want a ?bible? that gets the manuscripts from a place like that.

    Did you know that the only Bible without a copyright is the King James Bible? All the other versions have copyrights. What are copyrights made for? Money. What does the Bible say about the love of money?

    1 Timothy 6:10
    ?For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.? KJV

    If your King James Bible has a copyright, do you know why it does? Because of the side notes, dictionary, concordance and etc. If you buy a plain King James Bible without any notes or anything, you will have no copyright. Anyone can freely reprint the King James Bible without getting into copyright trouble. The reason I bring this up is because the Bible says?

    2 Timothy 2:9
    ?..the word of God is not bound.? KJV

    Did you see that? It says ?the word of God is not bound.? I do not believe that the word of God should be bound by human copyright and that is why I am against the new ?bibles?.

    I believe the King James Bible is inspired by God. I believe without a shadow of a doubt that God had something to do with the King James Bible. Did you know that the King James Bible was the seventh English Bible made? Read these below verses carefully.

    Psalms 12:6-7
    6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
    7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." KJV

    You see that? The words of the Lord are pure, purified SEVEN times, and then God goes on to say that He would preserve His words FOREVER. God said He would preserve His words forever and I will believe Him over any religious ?scholar?. Oh, and the fact that the King James Bible is the SEVENTH English Bible and God said His Words are purified SEVEN times is just a coincidence. ;)

    1. The Tyndale Bible, 1534
    2. Coverdale Bible, 1535
    3. Matthews Bible, 1537
    4. The Great Bible, 1539
    5. The Geneva Bible, 1560
    6. The Bishops? Bible, 1568
    7. The Authorized Version of the Bible, 1611

    I believe the King James Bible is the word of God because it was published under the authority of a king, unlike the modern new versions. It makes perfect sense for the word of God to be translated under the authority of a king, rather than a democracy. King James wanted the Bible to be printed in English, so the common people could all read the Bible whenever they wanted.

    Ecclesiastes 8:4
    "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" KJV

    Did you know England holds absolute time and location? Zero degrees longitude is located in England. If that is true, why would England not hold absolute truth? Now there is something to think about.

    Dear reader, those were some of the reasons I believe the King James Bible is the word of God. If you have a King James Bible, thank God for it everyday. It is a blessing for us to have the very words of God in our own hands and we should thank Him for that. If you are reading this and you read one of those new versions, I do not hold a grudge against you, but I plead with you to pray and study about this subject. This is a serious issue that needs to be looked at and not ignored. People can get saved by reading a different language bible and the new versions, but if a reader wants to become a true studier of the word of God, I stress for them to get a King James Bible.

    Love in Christ and God Bless
    Cody Watters

    (Originally Posted on
    lwcary likes this.
  2. eddiefrye

    eddiefrye New Member

    More Information to go along with your thread...

    Is salvation through faith or works? It depends on which bible you read...per CHICK Publications.
    Here is another example:
    John 3:36
    ASV> OBEYETH NOT - This version is in SS.
    GB> OBEYETH NOT - in SS.

    WYC> What does VNBILEUEFUL mean? - in SS.

    Here is another example:
    In the King James, Jesus Christ has been "going forth" from everlasting". As God has no beginning. But the Jesus of the NIV had an "origin" back in " ancient times." per CHICK Publications.
    Micah 5:2
    KJV> from everlasting
    YLT> From the days of antiquity (ancient times) - in SS.


    Main Entry: an?tiq?ui?ty [​IMG] Pronunciation: \an-ˈti-kwə-tē\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural an?tiq?ui?ties Date: 13th century 1: ancient times; especially : those before the Middle Ages2: the quality of being ancient3plural a: relics or monuments (as coins, statues, or buildings) of ancient times b: matters relating to the life or culture of ancient times4: the people of ancient times

    Check out CHICK Publications>
    Bible Versions Books:

    God Bless and Thank You...
  3. Gord

    Gord Beta Tester

    I really get more confused with folks who compare versions by word for word comparisons of versions. Off course words are going to be different, they were translated using different guidelines by different people at a different times in history.

    The Holy Spirit opened my heart to the saving grace or our Lord Jesus Christ when I read the following from the Good News Bible that was given to me by my sister.
    It had nothing to do with word comparisons or what version it was translated from, it had to do with God's grace, and the Holy Spirit opening my 'eyes' to the understanding of it's intention.

    I always like to study various themes and passages using various versions in Logo's or BibleExplorer4 and although I have no clue how to speak Greek or Hebrew I trust the translations give to me by vines. This adds to the richness of the intended thoughts and words given from the original text that I could never begin to comprehend on my own.

    When you have to rely on anything that man has done with regard to spiritual things you are really no different then Eve trusting the serpent.

    That is why there are so many different denominations and churches they are all just groups of 'man' with differing ideas to what they perceive. Version translations are 'man' made as well. I prefer to pray for understanding and let the Holy Spirit 'speak' to my heart for understanding, then perhaps being 'dead' right.
  4. marty

    marty Beta Tester

    In the old English they swapped 'v' and 'u' so start there - 'vnbileueful' = 'unbileveful' - and from there you get 'unbelieveful' or 'full of unbelief.'
  5. garymax

    garymax Member

    I don't mean to be rude but this quote reveals a little bit of ignorance on several levels.

    First, only the original manuscripts were "perfect". Now, I believe that God's Word has been preserved but I do not believe that any one translation is perfect; that is why it is good to compare translations to get a fuller context and word picture.

    Second, this writer obviously doesn't know or hasn't studied the Greek or Hebrew languages for if they had they would not make such foolish statements.

    There are many issues being dealt with in a translation--more than this person realizes: receptor language, idioms, tenses of verbs, translation type (paraphrase, literal, and everything in between) etc.

    The Greek, for instance, is a very exact language and the subtleties and color of the words cannot be adequately carried over into the target (i.e. English) language. This is why it is a blessing to be able to read and study the Greek and Hebrew to come to a fuller sense of what the authors were trying to say.

    As one Bible scholar put it, if the Bible translations were compared to a television set, English would be black and white while the original Greek and Hebrew would be full color. You get the same picture but clarity, detail, sharpness and contrast is better in color.

    Also, consider this: the English language did not even come into existence until the second millennium AD. How in the world can an English translation be better than the original language that was used to record the Word of God?

    Also, the charge that the KJV is the "preserved" Word of God is without biblical merit. Nobody has any "Word" for this position. It is simply a desire on the part of those who hold to this position to believe this way.

    Truth is God will use whatever translation because the Holy Spirit is not limited. I am not referring to aberrant translations like New World Translation, etc. I am referring to NIV, NASB and others which were and are translated by evangelical and God-fearing men and women.

    Are some translations better than others? Depends on the personal point of view. For those who think the KJV is "perfect" then they hold to it as the epitome of God's Word to man in the English language--which has not one thread of support from the Bible or anything else.

    The KJV-only debate creates far more heat than light and reflects a misunderstanding of the issues that are being dealt with in translation and the methods that the translators use to overcome obstacles to interpretation.

    Lastly, with all of the disputed passages and alternate renderings considered, none affect fundamental points of doctrine and only amount to something like 1/10th of 1% with respect to differences from the total corpus of known texts and manuscripts.

    With this said, if someone wants to believe that the KJV is the only perfect translation, that is between them and God.
  6. terrpn

    terrpn Active Member

    Yup............ lots of perversions out there. BEWARE of anything that says "NEW." If someone is "choosing" a Bible translation then "he/she" is the "authority," not God-- whereas that authority is earthly and is as corrupt as all the so called older manuscripts that came from Alexander vs Antioch.

    Thus saith the Lord............, 'eh? We know who the liar is. He is the father of it.

    If there is any Bible translation that upholds the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.......... it "is" the King James Bible. Wonder why there is only Bible--- that says we are to study? Singing to the choir for the most part I'm sure..........!

    Ecclesiastes 8:4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

    I know..........., I know we don't worship a Book, if we throw away a KJB we're not throwing away God................., but it sure do get close.

    Brandon............. once again great job and thank you!

    In Christ,
  7. Jumanous

    Jumanous Member

    Alexandrian scroll vs Textus Receptus.
    I was a bit of an NASB fan, thinking there were only a few changes, until I saw this site:

    The deity of Christ is removed almost entirely from the Alexandrian scroll, and the Westcott and Hort Translations. It's quite sickening really.
    I would never touch anything other than a KJV now. However, because the KJV is an old translation, it really helps to have something like swordsearcher to get the actual meanings of certain words.
  8. Truckerboy

    Truckerboy Member

    Hiya CodyKJV,

    I am with you all the way in your support for the KJV, although your post does tend to come across as a bit of a rant! However there are a few points or observations I would like to make:

    You say that we do not need to go to the original Greek (or Hebrew) - all we need is to read and allow the Holy Spirit to guide us. It is a great principle, and one of the 1st principles of understanding or interpreting the Bible is to take the text at its surface or simplest meaning where the context allows. But many times a passage may well not seem to make sense so we have to then start digging deeper.

    There are accepted rules of hermeneutics and exegesis to make sure that our approach and the actual final interpretation are consistent, so we need to look at the context, who the passage is addressed to, the cultural and historical background of the time that the passage was written, what it was the writer was aiming to convey and how the passage fits in with the rest of not only the chapter but of the book itself, since there were no chapter or verse divisions in the original manuscripts.

    Having done that, we may well then need to look at the original languages because compared with both Hebrew and Greek, English is a rather crude, restrictive language which lends itself to misinterpretation. If we are following these sort of principles, often referring to a Greek or Hebrew dictionary will be sufficient, but sometimes we need the clarification which comes from an understanding of the actual languages themselves which for most of us will then mean referring to commentaries and word studies. This is why there is such a vast array of reference material with SwordSearcher.

    The main reason for preferring the KJV is simply down to the texts which the various Bibles are translated from. The King James version is translated from what is called the Received Text or the Majority Text, while all subsequent translations come from sets of texts known as Sinaiticus B and Vaticanus, the 1st coming from Alexandria and the 2nd from a Roman Catholic monastery. Both sets contain sloppy workmanship such as poor copying, alterations by 10 different writers and marking the text with a pen such that analysis is almost impossible.

    Now although there are problems with the Received Text, these are comparatively minimal when set against the more than 3000 disagreements between all the fragments of the so-called better 2 sets. What is not known by many is that all the modern translations have not been done from these texts themselves. What actually happened was these texts were "prepared" by 2 Anglican ministers named Westcott and Hort who then persuaded the translation committee to use the results of their work. Supporters of the modern translations are very supportive of Westcott and Hort and of the translation work. I know this because I have had a conversation with somebody who worked for one of the translators and the common defence is that Wescott and Hort were part of the translation committee so accusations against these 2 men do not hold water. My friend, and no doubt her colleagues, have been trained by the translators in how to defend their work and don't tell you that Wescott and Hort had possession of the original set of manuscripts for nearly 20 years prior to the translation committee starting work. On top of this both of them denied foundational doctrines, spoke openly against the KJV, held to Higher Criticism and favoured Roman Catholicism.

    As if this wasn't enough, they were also involved in setting up occult organisations, the 1st of which being call the "Ghostly Guild" which was set up to explore or examine cases of paranormal activity. Again, this is defended as being an effort to analyse these activities from a Christian perspective and that these men did not remain with this group. In actual fact, they went on to set up subsequent and similar organisations which have gone on to become major globalist organisations at the top end of world politics and which are heavily linked to occult activity. They also had involvement in seances. I would suggest that there is plenty of evidence here to suggest that Wescott and Hort did not have the most pure of motives or clarity of vision.

    Consequently, when comparing translations you will find that the new ones will tend to diminish the Deity of Christ, His Lordship, the Atonement, the Virgin Birth, sin, repentance, punishment and hell, and leave the door open for Roman Catholicism.

    Ironically, the original request was for an amendment or updating of the KJV, with as few changes as possible. What they got was an entirely different Bible with thousands of changes. All they were supposed to be doing was update the language, and that is all.

    Now, here is my contribution to the debate: what is wrong with a group of like-minded people today producing a translation of the Bible in modern English language using the Received Text so that we end up with a Bible which does what all the other "modern" translations were supposed to do, but without the corruptions?

    Yours in Him,

  9. RevTim

    RevTim Beta Tester

    IMHO, it's doubtful today that we could find a group of scholars equal to the translators King James had.
  10. Jerry

    Jerry Beta Tester

    Wal-mart probably isn't the best place to get a barometer on the spiritual state of society. :)

    I appreciate your passion, Cody, but one of the reasons I shy away from this discussion, usually, is that it has been my experience that the KJV-only contingent is less than gracious, and this statement just re-enforces that perception to me.

    I have to agree with garymax, that this often leads to more heat than light, but here I am, sucked in again. :) I actually enjoy these discussions if they can be civil and spoken in Christian love.

    This argument, as most arguments go, depends on your starting supposition. If you suppose that the KJV is the only valid and written Word of God, then yes, such statistics will anger and frustrate you. But if you suppose the the KJV is one in a long line of translations ordained by God to bring his Word to his people, then such numbers don't bother you at all.

    Could I suggest caution here? One can manipulate numbers to say nearly anything. Just do some research on The Bible Code. I could find seven "somethings" practically anywhere, does that mean they are all purified and ordained by God? Probably not.

    Cody, this is an interesting statement to make, given your other implication elsewhere that suggests we should not retranslate Scripture in order to make it easier to read for our society.

    It also leads to a few questions. For instance, is God Anglo-Saxon? Do non-English speaking people have access to any valid words of God? Is translating the KJV to other languages a sin?

    Uh, why wouldn't the 7th longitude hold absolute truth? :) Yes, I'm joking, but there is a point in there.

    I use the KVJ side-by-side with the NASB and ESV in my studies. In my opinion this actually gives me a stronger, and more accurate, study of of God's Word, not less. That is my opinion. I'm glad, Cody, that you are so passionate about helping people see the truth.

    God bless.
  11. TerriP

    TerriP Active Member

    Dear Jerry,
    I like your signature line - and ain't it the truth. Thanks :)
    Terri P.
  12. Jason W. Elder

    Jason W. Elder Active Member

    Preliminary Questions to your Question
    1. Would it be copyrighted or free to reproduce?
    2. Which Received Text?
    3. What do you do when that edition/copy conflicts with the KJB rendering?

    Answers In General
    1. I agree with Rev. Tim. You'll not find scholars today who are of the same caliber as the KJ translators.
    2. For many Christians, the profusion of Bible translations and paraphrases has caused a reactionary suspicion of ?any? new translation. If there were only two or three English translations out there, then the work you speak of might be better received. But with hundreds of different versions on the market, it?s natural to suspect that the Bible business is just that ? a ?business.?
  13. RevTim

    RevTim Beta Tester

    Let me also add, that the English of the time when the King James translation was made represents the English language at it's zenith.

    We could never duplicate what was accomplished then. Period.

    And I thank God we don't have to, either.

    If native speakers of English mastered our mother tongue, what God has kept intact in English would not be a problem to understand.

    But I suspect for most people, it's like Mark Twain said, when they consider what the Bible actually says... "It's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bothers me. It's the parts I do."
  14. Jerry

    Jerry Beta Tester

    I'm just curious, for you and/or Rev Tim, what things draw you to this conclusion? Without having any access to the KJV translators themselves, and not being sure how many contemporary evangelical or fundamental scholars you've talked to, I would guess that you are basing that conclusion simply on the merits of the KJV versus, say, the NASB or other modern translations. Would that be correct?

    Unless, of course, English is not your native language.

    God bless.
  15. Jason W. Elder

    Jason W. Elder Active Member

    That second quote was not mine but Tim's.

    But no, I don't base my belief that the scholarship of the KJB is unmatched by today's scholars. I've read about the translators, their lives, beliefs, linguistic abilities, etc.

    Just google the name "John Bois." This guy, at the age of 5 had read the entire Bible - in Hebrew! ...and I could go on about him, but he just worked on the Apocrypha.

    And I admit, I haven't looked into the credentials of the modern crowd as much as I should. But after reading about the lives of these men, I just find it hard to believe their equals are alive today.
  16. Jerry

    Jerry Beta Tester

    Ack! Sorry about that, my bad. My speed-reading kicks me again! Seriously, sorry about that Jason and Tim.
  17. Jason W. Elder

    Jason W. Elder Active Member

    Its no biggie.8)
  18. Jason W. Elder

    Jason W. Elder Active Member

    Right, we don't have access to them, they're dead. But we do know a great deal about them. You'll find a brief synopsis of the KJV translators at this link.
    I worked hard to find one that was "brief". lol
  19. RevTim

    RevTim Beta Tester

    It would be based on my knowledge of the King James translators. For the record, I believe the Dr. D.A. Waite and the organizations he is involved with have published some fine background material on these men.

    Correct. But my understanding was we are speaking of the Word of God in English, so questioning that seems a non sequitur to me.
  20. RevTim

    RevTim Beta Tester

    No offense taken here either. Blessings.