Featured Believed King James was most accurate, now unsure what to think

Yes, the KJV's NT is not translated from any one Greek NT manuscript word for word. The KJV's NT was based on multiple, varying printed editions of the Textus Receptus text. The multiple printed editions of the Textus Receptus were based on multiple varying Greek NT manuscripts that varied, that were incomplete, and that had some copying errors. Erasmus even added some readings from an edition of Jerome's Latin Vulgate into the Textus Receptus, and some of those readings are found in no known Greek NT manuscripts. Therefore, textual criticism was involved in the making of the KJV's NT's underlying texts and also in the making of the KJV itself since the KJV translators picked and chose from more than one TR edition.

A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from the instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Eccl. 3:14, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished. The truth stated in these verses could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken (Deut. 18:20-22, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 23:35, Ezek. 22:28, Isa. 8:20, 1 John 4:1).

I think that following or obeying the instructions in these verses (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Eccl. 3:14, Rev. 22:18-19) could be considered a form of textual criticism.

 

KJV defender Dr. Bruce Lackey observed: “Let us not condemn something simply because it is a paraphrase; in so doing, we would have to condemn certain portions of the New Testament” (Can You Trust Your Bible, p. 40). Concerning those NT portions, Bruce Lackey noted: “Occasionally, an Old Testament portion will be paraphrased, or given a free rendering, or only certain portions will be used” (p. 39). Bruce Lackey asserted: “We must see from the New Testament usage that God’s truth may be expressed in more than one set of words” (p. 14).

The four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) would also provide evidence that God's truth may be expressed in more than one set of words.

 

www.biblehub.com - an excellent source to peruse the parallel renderings of several versions (among other things).

For example, take Rev 1:1: Revelation 1:1 This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what must soon come to pass. He made it known by sending His angel to His servant John, (biblehub.com)

New International Version
The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

New Living Translation
This is a revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the events that must soon take place. He sent an angel to present this revelation to his servant John,

English Standard Version
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

Berean Standard Bible
This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what must soon come to pass. He made it known by sending His angel to His servant John,

Berean Literal Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants what things it behooves to take place in quickness. And He signified it through having sent His angel to His servant, John,

King James Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

New King James Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John,

New American Standard Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

NASB 1995
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

NASB 1977
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

Legacy Standard Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His slaves the things which must soon happen; and He indicated this by sending it through His angel to His slave John,

Amplified Bible
This is the revelation of Jesus Christ [His unveiling of the divine mysteries], which God [the Father] gave to Him to show to His bond-servants (believers) the things which must soon take place [in their entirety]; and He sent and communicated it by His angel (divine messenger) to His bond-servant John,

Christian Standard Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ that God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ that God gave Him to show His slaves what must quickly take place. He sent it and signified it through His angel to His slave John,

American Standard Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
The Revelation of Yeshua The Messiah, which God gave to him, to show his Servants what had been given to soon occur, and he symbolized it when he sent by his Angel to his Servant Yohannan,

Contemporary English Version
This is what God showed to Jesus Christ, so that he could tell his servants what must happen soon. Christ then sent his angel with the message to his servant John.

Douay-Rheims Bible
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass: and signified, sending by his angel to his servant John,

English Revised Version
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to shew unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;

GOD'S WORD® Translation
This is the revelation of Jesus Christ. God gave it to him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He sent this revelation through his angel to his servant John.

Good News Translation
This book is the record of the events that Jesus Christ revealed. God gave him this revelation in order to show to his servants what must happen very soon. Christ made these things known to his servant John by sending his angel to him,

International Standard Version
This is the revelation of Jesus the Messiah, which God gave him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He made it known by sending his messenger to his servant John,

Literal Standard Version
A revelation of Jesus Christ that God gave to Him to show to His servants what things must quickly come to pass; and He signified [it], having sent through His messenger to His servant John,

Majority Standard Bible
This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what must soon come to pass. He made it known by sending His angel to His servant John,

New American Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show his servants what must happen soon. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

NET Bible
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon. He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John,

New Revised Standard Version
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

New Heart English Bible
This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John,

Webster's Bible Translation
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John:

Weymouth New Testament
The revelation given by Jesus Christ, which God granted Him, that He might make known to His servants certain events which must shortly come to pass: and He sent His angel and communicated it to His servant John.

World English Bible
This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things which must happen soon, which he sent and made known by his angel to his servant, John,

Young's Literal Translation
A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and he did signify it, having sent through his messenger to his servant John,

Additional Translations ...

 

One quick note to add into your thinking along the way.

This is a Big, Big Lie, because it is the most prominent selling point for all the Modern Bibles, and it is just one big fat lie.

Why? Why did they lie about this?

"When someone says that B and Aleph are the oldest available manuscripts, they are lying.

"There are many Syriac and Latin translations from as far back as the SECOND CENTURY that agree with the King James readings.

"For instance, the Pashitta (145 A.D.), and the Old Syriac (400 A.D.) both contain strong support for the King James readings.

"There are about fifty extant copies of the Old Latin from about 157 A.D., which is over two hundred years before Jerome was conveniently chosen by Rome to "revise" it.

"Then Ulfilas produced a Gothic version for Europe in A.D. 330.

"The Armenian Bible, which agrees with the King James, has over 1,200 extant copies and was translated by Mesrob around the year 400.

"Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are clearly NOT the oldest and best manuscripts."

from: Fighting Back! A Handy Reference Guide For King James Bible Believers by James Melston www.av1611.org

 

While it may be asserted that there was a Latin translation of the Bible by around A. D. 150, how many actual existing Latin manuscripts dated from the Second Century are there? Is there any? Is it many? The Old Testament of the Old Latin Bibles is said to be translated from the Greek Septuagint.

From the Second Century, is there any complete Old Latin New Testament manuscript that agrees with every reading in the KJV or any Old Latin New Testament manuscript with half of the New Testament?

Is there any second century manuscript of the Peshitta (145 A.D.) that agrees with every reading in the KJV?

 

Can you list, identify, and names those extant copies of the Old Latin from about 157 A.D.?

Did you check out this source's claim or do you blindly repeat it?

Perhaps the leading authority concerning the Latin New Testament, H. A. G. Houghton noted: “The Latin translation of the New Testament is not a word-for-word equivalent which can easily be retroverted to reconstruct its Greek source” (Latin NT, p. 143). Houghton maintained that “certain elements of Greek cannot be rendered directly into Latin” (p. 147). Houghton claimed: “The oldest surviving manuscripts of the Latin New Testament were copied in the fourth century” (p. 19). Houghton asserted that “even in the earliest Latin tradition there is a degree of harmonizing interference” (p. 144). Houghton claimed that “the earliest Latin version was the loosest, often paraphrasing and sometimes even omitting material which appeared to be superfluous” (pp. 143-144). Houghton pointed out several examples of interpolations, glosses, or additions in Latin manuscripts (pp. 158, 159, 161, 163, 167-169, 174, 179). For one specific example, Houghton referred to “the lengthy interpolation at Matthew 20:28 of a text resembling Luke 14:8-10, present in many Old Latin codices as well as some Vulgate gospel books” (p. 80; see also pp. 158-159). Houghton asserted that “the Latin tradition of the Catholic Epistles is characterized by interpolations to an even greater extent than the Pauline Epistles” (p. 179).

Even KJV defender Edward F. Hills listed several additions found in the Old Latin manuscripts at Matthew 3:15, Matthew 20:28, Luke 3:22, Luke 6:4, Luke 23:53, John 6:56, Acts 15:20, and Acts 23:24 (Believing Bible Study, pp. 46-47; KJV Defended, pp. 121-122) and also several omissions (BBS, pp. 69-70; KJV Defended, p. 123). F. C. Burkitt maintained that “the earliest Latin versions contained a text of the Gospels enriched by additions” (Old Latin, p. 52). Houghton noted that “knowledge of the looseness of early translators should caution against using versional evidence to reconstruct Greek forms which are not preserved” (Latin NT, p. 146). Arthur Voobus claimed: "The textual complexion of the Old Latin version is marked by the boldest departures from the received text" (Early Versions of the NT, p. 47).

 

I am responding to that which I have highlighted.

Jesus Christ was preaching the "kingdom of heaven" was at hand in the gospel accounts and he said he came to fulfill all prophesies in the law, and the prophets and the psalms concerning him. He would not have set his Hebrew kingdom up with the Greek language. There are several reasons I know this. To fall for the idea that Jesus spoke to the Hebrews in Greek is not true.

However, there were Greek speaking Hebrews in and around Jerusalem as well as synogogues of Hebrews from different cultures who did not speak Hebrews but some other language.

Zephaniah 3:9
For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.

Pure means all Hebrews will speak the same language and it will not be Greek. There is some logic to be applied to biblical studies. The official God given language of Israel was Hebrew. He has not changed that and he says when they are speaking a different language it means they are under a disipline of God. The Jews in Judah made the Jews who spoke Greek feel inferior and it comes out in their dealing with them.

1 Cor 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Acts 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

The word of the gospel was sown first in Jerusalem and Judaea among the Hebrews.Many of these men do not even believe the OT scriptures and why would they believe Jesus Christ will establish a righteous kingdom with nothing but born again subjects in it at the beginning like is told us by the OT prophets and they are the ones writing most the books in this age and at some point in history at a set time that only he knows for sure he will destroy every rebel who will not accept his rule from off the earth, whether they be men or angels.

The men who are writing these new translations will tell you their translations can not be believed, every word. The KJV can be believed.

 

@JasonF,
FYI, I am a pro-KJV advocate. I am not a KJVonlyist.

@Scarlett O., Gave you excellent advice.
Here: Believed King James was most accurate, now unsure what to think

 

Are you suggesting that later English Bible translators say something similar to what the KJV translators stated concerning English Bible translations?

Writing for all the translators in the 1611 preface, Miles Smith noted: “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” Miles Smith observed: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.”

In the 1611 preface, this is stated: “doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.” The 1611 preface also noted that “diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

According to the large number of marginal notes in the 1611 edition, its makers must have found many places where they considered the text not to be so clear in its meaning. The makers of the KJV gave many more word-for-word, literal renderings in their marginal notes, and they also offered many acceptable, alternative renderings. In some marginal notes, they provided examples of where they gave no English word/rendering for an original-language word of Scripture in their underlying texts. These marginal notes clearly contradict any suggestion that all their translation decisions should be considered certain and unquestionable. The marginal notes could also raise doubt concerning some of their textual criticism decisions. The 1611 preface noted: “They that are wise, had rather have their judgment at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.”

Later editors would make over 2,000 changes and corrections to the 1611 edition, demonstrating that every word in the 1611 was not correct.

 

I would like to recommend
The Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version

 

The KJV can be believed to be the word of God translated into English in the same sense (univocally) as the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense (univocally) as some post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

Non-true and non-scriptural claims for the KJV should not be believed.

 

I know what you are saying. Since there was a human natural element involved in the actual translations of the Bible, it is great to learn all about them.

It may interest you to know that although the King James, being the seventh in the line of English Bibles used in God's Providence of the Preservation of His Word He promised, is all about 'preservation', the same may not be said of 'the modern bibles.' Did you know that?

Along with The Lordship of Jesus, The Preeminence of Jesus Christ, i.e.,
"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."
Colossians 1:18, the Deity of Jesus Christ, the full name of, "Jesus Christ", etc., another major Bible Doctrine has been dispensed with by the ones who produced 'the modern bibles', is THE PRESERVATION OF THE BIBLE.

IT'S GONE. HISTORY.

Thus, I suppose that they make no claim to being any part of the Preservation of the Bible, to start with. After all, they began their project to treat and translate a new Bible version with the intension that it 'be treated like any other book".

That is the opposite the the Realm of the Spirit, from the sentiment of God's men who were used in the translation of the King James.

Oh yeah, I forgot; The First Commandment has also been jettisoned by 'the modern version's' translation philosophy;
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment."

When you said,

you said a mouthful of God-Given insight and wisdom.

This attitude of departing from the Doctrine of the Preservation of the Bible, carries with it many treacherous new retrogressions.

In your choices for a Bible, remember that there is a great difference in Doctrine, between the King James and 'the modern bibles', and none more prominent than, The Doctrine of the Preservation of the Bible.

They skipped it.

This Br. L.G., has some thoughts on all that;

The Twin Doctrines of Scripture
written by L. G. Brigden, Senior Editorial Consultant - Linguistics

"It is noteworthy that the many textual differences between the Authorised (King James) Version and the more modern English versions can all be traced to a crucial underlying doctrinal difference.

"The translators of the Authorised (King James) Version held not only to the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture but also to the doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture.

"Today, while the doctrine of divine inspiration is still generally held, the doctrine of divine preservation is largely lost and forgotten, and sometimes even denied.1

"However, the principle of the divine preservation of Scripture was once well known as a Biblical doctrine.

"Historic confessions, such as the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), contain an explicit statement of the doctrine (1.8):2

"The Old Testament in Hebrew … and the New Testament in Greek … being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical

"In this statement both doctrines, divine inspiration (‘immediately inspired by God’) and divine preservation (‘by his singular care and providence kept pure’), are conjoined and equally maintained as Biblical truths."

"Remove the doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture and the whole approach to Bible translation changes.

"Firstly, it will change our choice of the texts on which to base a translation.

"If we hold to the divine preservation of Scripture, we will look for that text which has been preserved by God’s providence throughout history, and for that text which has also been generally received by the church throughout history.

"And where else shall we look but to the Received Text?

"On the other hand, ignore or forget the doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture, or worse still deny it, and we are all at sea, sifting through a mass of manuscript evidence but with no more guiding light than the subjective guesses of scholars.

"Secondly, adherence to the doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture affects the method of translation. If the words are not only the inspired but also the preserved words of God, then those words are precious in themselves and we will attempt to literally translate them, and not merely give the sense of them, whatever we may conjecture that sense to be.

"Thus we will choose the formal equivalent approach to translation rather than a dynamic equivalent approach.

"There is doubtless a connection between the rise and popularity of dynamic equivalent translations and the decline in the doctrine of divine preservation".

 

Yet they were not KJVOnlys. They know that their Bible is not the perfect translation, after all they were scholars. They believed the opposite of a group of later in history americans who believe in making their Bible into a perfect, golden idol.

The KJV is still an excellent Bible, because it was made from the earlier existing English Bibles. But that is no reason to make an idol of it.

 

We've known for 99 years, a least, from those who were shown by God these unmitigated catastrophes in choices for the underlying original Greet text manuscripts, to be used in the translation of all of the 'modern' Bible versions.

This is how Philip Mauro came about the understanding that the underlying original Greet text manuscripts used in the translation of all 'modern' Bible versions, were rubbish.

Here, he starts out by saying that he learned the first 'modern' Bible versions, (The Revised Version), was NOT a 'revision' of the King James and that was also, One More Big autrocious lie, told for the promotion of the "New" revised version of the King James/ correct that/ for the promotion of an entirely different translation, altogether, NOT USING THE TRADITIONAL GREEK TEXT SOURCES, BUT BY CHANGING OUT The TRADITIONAL GREEK TEXT SOURCES, AND PUTTING IN THEIR PLACE VERY SUSPECT GREEK TEXT SOURCES, WHICH HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE SPURIOUS, FROM THEIR BEGINNING.

So, why the lying?

“… it should be understood that what was contemplated by those who were responsible for the appointment of that Committee [Revised Version of 1881] was simply a revision of the Version of 1611;

"and had the Committee confined themselves to the task actually entrusted to them, and kept within the limits of the instructions given to them, the results of their long labors would no doubt have been a gain and a blessing to all the English-speaking nations, and through them to all mankind.

“But instead of a Revised version of the long accepted English Bible, the Committee brought forth (so far at least as the New Testament was concerned) a New Version.

"This fact was not disclosed by them.

"The ‘Preface to the Edition of A.D. 1885’ gives no indication of it; but through the vigilance of certain godly and scholarly men (Dean Burgon in particular) the important fact was discerned and brought to light that the Committee had produced, not a Revised Version (though that was the name given it) but a New Version, which was a translation of a ‘New Greek text'.

"These facts about the English Revision of 1881 explain why many men who at first supported the project later rejected it.

"The revision committee was charged with producing a simple updating of the KJV and were required to make “as few changes as possible.”

"Instead, Westcott and Hort secretly introduced a radically new Greek New Testament.

"The rest of the committee, composed of a Unitarian and theological liberals and weak men who claimed to be evangelical in doctrine but who were willing to yoke together with heretics, largely acquiesced to Hort’s enthusiasm.

"Now we continue from Mauro’s Which Version:

“But, looking beyond and above the sphere of mere human judgment, and recognizing the superintendence of the Spirit of God in all that has to do with the Word of God, we feel warranted in concluding from the facts stated above that there are Divine reasons for the retention of the A.V. in the favor of the people of God. We will try, therefore, to point out some of those reasons” (Philip Mauro,Which Version, Introduction).
________________________

"Mauro’s position is obvious from these quotations.

From there, he proceeded to defend the Greek Received Text against the critical text founded upon modern textual criticism and the King James Version against the Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901.

"In chapter three, Mauro discussed the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts, which are highly revered by modern textual critics.

"He concluded that they “are so corrupt upon their face as to justify the conclusion that they owe their survival solely to their bad reputation.”

"He said further, “… when the two MSS. which controlled the Westcott and Hort text are scrutinized [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus], they are found to contain such internal proofs of their unreliability as to impeach their own testimony, and render them utterly unworthy of belief.

"They present the case of witnesses who have been caught in so many misstatements as to discredit their entire testimony.”

from: Philip Mauro – Preterist Archives
...

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

"When someone "corrects" the King James Bible with "more authoritative manuscripts" or "older manuscripts," or "the best authorities," they're usually making some reference to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus.

"These are two very corrupt fourth century uncials that are practically worshipped by modern scholars.

"These are the primary manuscripts that Westcott and Hort relied so heavily on when constructing their Greek text (1851-1871) on which the new versions are based.

"Vaticanus (B) is the most worshipped.

"This manuscript was officially catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475, and is still property of the Vatican today.

"Siniaticus (Aleph) was discovered in a trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai by Count Tischendorf, a German scholar, in the year 1844.

"Both B and Aleph are Roman Catholic manuscripts.

"Remember that!

"You might also familiarize yourself with the following facts:

"1. Both manuscripts contain the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament.

"2. Tischendorf, who had seen both manuscripts, believed they were written by the same man, possibly Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 A.D.).

"3. Vaticanus was available to the King James translators, but God gave them sense enough to ignore it.

"4. Vaticanus omits Geneses 1:1-46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Rom. 16:24, I Timothy through Titus, the entire book of Revelation, and it conveniently ends the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14. If you're familiar with Hebrews 10, you know why.

"5. While adding The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the New Testament, Siniaticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7 (just to name a few).

"6. It is believed that Siniaticus has been altered by as many as ten different men.

"Consequently, it is a very sloppy piece of work (which is probably the reason for it being in a trash can).

"Many transcript errors, such as missing words and repeated sentences are found throughout it.

"7. The Dutch scholar, Erasmus (1469-1536), who produced the world's first printed Greek New Testament, rejected the readings of Vaticanus and Siniaticus.

"8. Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!"

 

The KJV is not the seventh in a line of English Bibles. David Daniell wrote: “There were ten new English versions of the Bible or New Testament between Tyndale’s first New Testament in 1526 and the famous King James or Authorised Version of 1611, and all were influential” (Bible in English, p. 126). KJV defender David Norris noted: “between 1526 and 1611, nine English translations of Scripture of significance were made” (Big Picture, p. 333).

Some examples include the following: Tyndale's New Testament, Joyce's New Testament, 1535 Coverdale's Bible, 1537 Matthew's Bible, Coverdale's Latin-English New Testament (1538), Taverner's Bible (1539), the Great Bible, Coverdale’s revision of Tyndale’s (1549), Bishop Becke's Bible (1551), Richard Jugge's New Testament (1552), Whittingham's New Testament (1557), 1560 Geneva Bible, 1568 Bishops' Bible, Lawrence Tompson's New Testament (1576), and KJV.

The 1560 Geneva Bible and the claimed 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible that had the 1576 Thompson's New Testament was a different Bible than the 1560 Geneva Bible. The makers of the KJV used two different Bibles that may have been called the Geneva, but those two Bibles are not the same. The makers of the KJV borrowed also many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, making it one of the English Bibles that underlie the KJV.

The KJV does not preserve all the renderings and readings that were in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it is a revision. The KJV is not a completely literal, every word, word-for-word translation. The KJV gives no English word/rendering for many original-language words of Scriptures in its underlying texts. The KJV has some dynamic equivalent renderings.

 

It has not been demonstrated that the entire text of the New Testament of Vaticanus was available to the KJV translators for them to be able to choose to ignore it. Erasmus had been provided with some readings from it, but not its entire text. Its entire NT text had not been printed at the time of the making of the KJV. They did not have available its entire New Testament text. It does not mean that they would have followed it if they had had its text available.

Are you aware of the fact that some of the KJV translators made use of the 1587 Roman edition of the Greek Septuagint which is based on Codex Vaticanus so that they did not completely ignore this codex's Old Testament text?

KJV translator John Bois had a copy of this 1587 Sixtine Septuagint in which are added "thousands of marginal and interlinear annotations in Bois's neat, distinctive hand" (Feingold [ed.], Hardy, Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord, p. 279). This edition of the Septuagint text was one of the ones that served as the basis for the Greek text of the Apocrypha books for the 1611 edition of the KJV.

This printed edition of the Septuagint text based on Codex Vaticanus may have influenced some of the KJV's textual and translation decisions in the Old Testament. At least it was likely consulted and not completely ignored.

For one example, the KJV's rendering pygarg at Deuteronomy 14:5 could come directly from the Greek Septuagint or indirectly from it through the Latin Vulgate.

Deut. 14:5 [Hebrew, dishon; Greek LXX, pygargos; Latin Vulgate, pygargus] unicornio (1602 Spanish Valera)

unicorn (TYN, MATT, COV, GREAT, GEN, BIS)

pygarg (KJV)

 

For the sake of honesty, I would not consider changing from the KJV, to any of the 'modern bibles', unless you are also inclined to change your religion to that which they espouse.

All of the changes that have been made in the 'modern bibles' which diminish and counter the teachings of Jesus' Divinity do so for one reason; their translators and writers didn't believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ, so they took out what they wanted to define Jesus as a man and not God.

They just changed the 'bible' from that representing Christianity, to another religion. Gnosticism, if you like, or Anti-Christ Occultism.


THE NINETEENTH CENTURY OCCULT REVIVAL

The Legacy of Westcott & Hort
By Barbara Aho

Principles of Bible Preservation – The Bible has been miraculously preserved down through the ages and here are some principles concerning Bible preservation.


Qualifications of the King James Translators – The King James translators were men of exceptional quality and education. They far exceed the Bible translators of today.


The Received Text – A small article on the accuracy and truthfulness of the Received text which underlies the King James Bible.

King James Version Bible Websites

King James Bible Comparison Page
770 verses which have been corrupted in the modern versions. They also reveal that the modern versions are one and the same with the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Roman Catholic Bibles. All you have to do is click on any verse and you will instantly see the corruption.

Articles and Comparisons on Specific Modern Translations.

Examples:
The Attack on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ in the ESV – The ESV is no friend of the Lord Jesus Christ as it contains many verses which have been chopped up by the Gnostics. They have taken the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and have shortened it since they did not believe that Christ was God and man at the same time.


Fifty Biblical Teachings and Doctrines Affected in the ESV - The ESV is not the accurate version you think it is! Here is visible proof!

The New American Standard Version Exposed – Here are fifty verses in comparison with the King James Bible, The Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible, and the Roman Catholic New American Bible. Guess which two it agrees with? The JWs and the RC Bible.


Fifty Biblical Teachings and Doctrines Affected in the NASV - The NASV has been a counterfeit since 1959. It is still a major corruption no matter how many times they update it.

Fifty Biblical Teachings and Doctrines Affected in the NIV - The NIV is a very corrupt book which makes incessant attacks on the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father!

The NIV Hates the Lord Jesus – The NIV deletes and shortens the name of the Lord Jesus Christ because it has been infected with the Gnosticism of the 2nd century. Another dangerous book calling itself a Bible.
2 Cor. 2:11 (KJV) "Lest Satan should get an advantage of us:
for we are not ignorant of his devices."

The Characteristics of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

"To better understand why these two manuscripts differ so much from the Textus Receptus, I would like to describe these manuscripts to you so you may see how corrupt they are which means they are absolutely unreliable, yet the modern scholar sees these two manuscripts as the crowning glory of manuscripts and they believe that God has preserved these manuscripts to give us a better Bible."

"These two manuscripts are the foundational manuscripts of all the modern versions. When we see the characteristics of the two manuscripts as being inferior and loaded with false books plus many scribal errors and writings, and now proof exists that Sinaiticus is a fake, we can see plainly why the modern versions lack integrity and why they are missing so much.


(Rev 22:18-19 KJV) "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

{19} "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."

"Origen was a heretic and Gnostic and along with Clement of Alexandria helped to corrupt the manuscripts giving us the false versions of today. Here are some of Adamantius Origen's beliefs. When he taught, he wore the pagan robes of the pagan philosopher plus he castrated himself based on his Gnostic views of the evil of the flesh.

1) He believed the Holy Spirit was a feminine force.
2) He believed in Soul Sleep
3) He was a very strong proponent of Baptismal regeneration
4) He believed that Jesus was only a created being and Gnosticism taught that Jesus became Christ at his baptism but that he was never God. He was a just a good man with very high morals.
5) He believed in the doctrine of Purgatory
6) He believed in transubstantiation
7) He believed in the transmigration of the soul and reincarnation of the soul.
8) He doubted the temptations of Jesus in Scripture and claimed they could have never happened.
9) The Scriptures were not literal. He was the father of allegory.
10) Genesis 1-3 was a myth, not historical or literal, as there was no actual person named "Adam."
11) Based upon Matthew 19, a true man of God should be castrated, which he did to himself.
12) He taught eternal life was not a gift, instead one must grab hold of it and retain it.
13) Christ enters no man until they mentally grasp the understanding of the consummation of the ages. (It was Frederick Dennison Maurice in the 19th century who defined eternal life as coming to a knowledge of God. This is the essence of Gnosticism.)
14) He taught there would be no physical resurrection of the believers.

Origen's belief system clearly indicates that he was a Gnostic Greek Philosopher ... The greatest corruption of the biblical manuscripts happened in the 2nd century in Alexandria when the true Antiochan manuscripts were mutilated to adapt to the beliefs of the Gnostics and Arians.

"A 2nd century heretic named Marcion, discounted Matthew, Mark, and John and only accepted Luke, but only after he "corrected" it to fit his Arian beliefs. Today Origen could be classified as a Jehovah’s Witness."

 

You fail to prove your accusations to be true so they may bear false witness.

Some present English Bibles present the deity of Jesus Christ just as clearly and sometimes more clearly than the KJV does.
They do not deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

Several pre-1611 English Bibles and many post-1611 English Bibles clearly, precisely, and accurately identify Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1. William Tyndale in 1534, Miles Coverdale in 1535, and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." In his 1538 Latin-English New Testament, Miles Coverdale rendered it “righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The 1539 Great Bible, 1557 Whittingham's New Testament, 1560 Geneva Bible, 1568 Bishops' Bible, 1576 Tomson’s New Testament, 1657 Haak’s English translation of the Dutch Bible, 1755 Wesley's New Testament, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, 1862 Young’s Literal Translation, 1866 American Bible Union Version, 1982 NKJV, 1994 Majority Text Interlinear, and other English translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ." Thomas Goodwin maintained that “[Theodore] Beza reads it, ‘our God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,’” and that “it clearly meant one person, viz. Christ” (Works, VIII, p. 283).

At Titus 2:13, the NKJV, the MKJV, and several other English translations read "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” more clearly presenting the deity of Christ. John Wesley translated it as “the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

At Romans 9:5, some pre-1611 English Bibles and some post-1611 English translations translate the verse clearly to indicate that Christ is "God over all." For example, the 1560 Geneva Bible translated the end of this verse as follows: “Christ came, who is God over all blessed for ever, Amen.”

At John 8:58, Wesley’s N. T., the 1971 KJII, 1973 NASB, NKJV, MKJV, GLT, and Wuest's translation capitalize "I AM" to make sure the reader knows that Christ was claiming here to be God. Do these translations more clearly indicate a connection between this verse and Exodus 3:14 than does the KJV?

Concerning Acts 7:59 in his commentary, J. A. Alexander maintained that “upon God is introduced by the Geneva version and King James’s, no doubt with a good design, but with a very bad effect, that of separating Stephen’s invocation from its object, and obscuring, if not utterly concealing, a strong proof of the divinity of Christ” (pp. 311-312). Alexander added: “Calling upon God and saying Lord Jesus may have been intended by the translators to identify these objects in the strongest manner; but besides the impropriety of such interpolations, even for such a purpose, the actual impression is most probably the contrary, to wit, that there are two distinct acts here recorded, that of calling upon God, and that of saying Lord Jesus, whereas these acts are spoken of as one and the same, in the Greek and in several of the older versions” (p. 312). Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Great, and Bishop’s Bibles have the rendering “calling on and saying, Lord Jesus” at Acts 7:59. The 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists has “calling, and saying, Lord Jesus.“ The Companion Bible has a note at this verse that affirmed that “there is no Ellipsis [omission] of the word God” after “calling upon” (p. 1594). Barnes’ Notes asserted that “the word God is not in the original and should not have been in the translation” (p. 428). In Jamieson’s Commentary, David Brown commented: “A most unhappy supplement of our translators is this word ‘God’ here--as if, while addressing the Son, he was really calling not upon Him, but upon the Father. The sense is perfectly clear without any supplement at all” (Vol. 3, p. 47). A. T. Robertson observed that Stephen “was calling upon the Lord Jesus and making direct prayer to him as ‘Lord Jesus’” (Word Pictures, III, p. 99). Alexander wrote: “This prayer of Stephen is not only a direct imitation of our Lord’s upon the cross (Luke 23:46), but a further proof that he addressed him as a divine person, since he here asks of the Son precisely what the Son there asks of the Father” (p. 312).