1. God promised to preserve His words (Psa. 12:6-7; Mat. 24:35). There has to be a preserved copy of God's pure words somewhere. If it isn't the KJV, then what is it?
It is the Greek and Hebrew texts that the KJV translators used as their source.
It has no copyright. The text of the KJV may be reproduced by anyone for there is no copyright forbidding it's duplication. This is not true with the modern perversions.
It was protected by copyright when it was first published. The copyright has since expired. All copyrights expire. There are several biblical versions out today that have no copyright.
The KJV produces good fruit (Mat. 7:17-20). No modern translation can compare to the KJV when it comes to producing good fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the preaching and teaching of the KJV to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. Laodicean Christians might favor the new versions, but the Holy Spirit doesn't.
I guess the fruit is in the eye of the beholder.
The KJV was translated during the Philadelphia church period (Rev. 3:7-13). The modern versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodicean period gets underway (Rev. 3:14-22), but the KJV was produced way back in 1611, just in time for the many great revivals (1700-1900). The Philadelphia church was the only church that did not receive a rebuke from the Lord Jesus Christ, and it was the only church that "kept" God's word (Rev. 3:8).
The KJV was not well received by the 1611 audience, For starters, the Elizabethen language had already fallen out of favor in the general populus.
The KJV translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add certain words, largely due to idiom changes, they placed the added words in italics so we'd know the difference. This is not the case with many new translations.
That's speculative, IMO.
All new translations compare themselves to the KJV. Isn't it strange that the new versions never compare themselves to one another? For some strange reason they all line up against one Book--the A.V. 1611. I wonder why? Try Matthew 12:26. It seems to me that it's the other way around, that KJV onlyists comtinually compare the KJV to other translations, both pre- and post- 1611.
The KJV translators believed they were handling the very words of God (I Ths. 2:13). Just read the King James Dedicatory and compare it to the prefaces in the modern versions. Immediately, you will see a world of difference in the approach and attitude of the translators. Which group would YOU pick for translating a book?
There's no arguement that their effort was an honest one. However, an honest effort is not an arguement for translational exclusivity.
The KJV is supported by far more evidence. Of over 5,300 pieces of manuscript evidence, ninety-five percent supports the King James Bible! The changes in the new versions are based on the remaining five percent of manuscripts, most of which are from Alexandria, Egypt. (There are only two lines of Bibles: the Devil's line from Alexandria, and the Lord's line from Antioch. We'll deal with this later.)
Assumig it was true, it still does not explain errors in translation that we know of now, that they did not know of then.
No one has ever proven that the KJV is not God's word. The 1611 should be considered innocent until proven guilty with a significant amount of genuine manuscript evidence.
I did, but my posts have generally gone ignored.
The KJV exalts the Lord Jesus Christ. The true scriptures should testify of Jesus Christ (John 5:39). There is no book on this planet which exalts Christ higher than the King James Bible. In numerous places the new perversions attack the Deity of Christ, the Blood Atonement, the Resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, and the Second Coming. The true scriptures will TESTIFY of Jesus Christ, not ATTACK Him!
True translations should simply translate the original to the currently used language. For them to do anything more may result in a biased translation.
