Forget the KJB. Is there any version that you believe is perfect?

[Dave G]

Infallibility and inerrancy are modern concepts that go beyond what the Bible has to say about itself.

Respectfully,

Infallibility is not a modern concept:
Titus 1:2, Numbers 23:19, Hebrews 6:18...God, who cannot lie.
The Bible itself clearly establishes both God and His words to be infallible and incapable of lying in its every word.

Inerrancy is not a modern concept:
Psalms 12:6, Psalms 18:30, Psalms 19:8, Proverbs 30:5.
God's words are pure.

Therefore, any Bible that men can point to and have confidence in, should and would not deviate from the originals in any way, shape or form except in "tongue".
Any translation that God's people, who know His voice and follow Him and His words ( because they have "ears to hear" ), should serve as something they can point to and have comfort in.

For those that believe that inerrancy and infallibility disappeared with the originals, I'm sorry that you feel this way.
I have a Bible, and I can point to it and say with confidence that they are God's words in my own language.

While I disagree with George on many things ( even up to and including the tone of this thread ), I do agree that God's word does exist, it has been preserved and I know where to find it.
I also hold that any translation faithfully and accurately translated from that providentially preserved word can and will be trusted by Christ's sheep.

Finally, any faithful and accurate translation performed from that providentially preserved word, will reflect and carry through to the next language, the original infallibility and inerrancy of those very same originals.

 

[George Antonios]

The sum:

While you fine Christians decry the humanistic and false claims of the world that truth is relative/there is no absolute truth; and that God, if he exists, has created and removed himself from the affairs of men, you apply precisely those very concepts to the Bible issue: there is no absolutely true Bible, all versions are relative, depending on each student's own perception, and God has inspired once and then removed himself from the process.

Faith hath no place. Humanistic textual criticism is the ultimate judge.

You all tell us: "There is no perfect Bible today."

And the serpent, and the atheists, and the Muslims, all agree with you.

It's Genesis 3:1, however much you couch it and change the subject.

This thread has shown that your issue indeed is not a denial of the the King James Version being inerrant, it's a denial of the Bible being inerrant period.
Confining yourself to the originals is a moot faith. It is meaningless, of no consequence, and is untestable - which is precisely why you're comfortable with it.
If a humanist points a mistake, then you just fall back on the invincible claim of "yeah but the originals were inerrant". The position is rightly laughable in the eyes of the lost; and it's not Biblical either.
Ehrman may be a fool, and an infidel, but at least he is more consistent than you. He rightly reasoned that inspiration without inerrant preservation is meaningless.
And by the way, I've met conservative Bible university students who now believe that the originals could have had mistakes.
Those are your spiritual children, for that's the logical next-step in the humanistic heritage you left them.

 

[Yeshua1]

No translation is given by 100% inspiration. That would only be the original manuscripts. You are merging several topics here though. Inerrancy, Infallibility, Original Content, Reliability.

Can we be confident in the English translations we have to day communicates the message of the inspired Word of God? YES. I have full faith in the KJV, ESV, NASB, and several others.

Are the translations themselves inspired? Absolutely not.

Some here seem to be stating that unless we have a perfect and an inspired translation, cannot have the word of God!

 

[Yeshua1]

The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611.

The Church of England makers of the KJV referred to the pre-1611 English Bibles as being "the word of God" even though they had imperfections or errors and even though they made hundreds or thousands of changes to the pre-1611 word of God translated into English. They did not claim that the pre-1611 English Bible was 100% given by inspiration even though they still called it "the word of God."

George Antonios, does a consistent, just application of your own allegation accuse the KJV translators of holding a position that "is antichristian, and is of the serpent, not the Holy Ghost"?
If not, you would demonstrate that you are guilty of the use of unjust divers measures [an abomination to the LORD].

Do the KJV translators expose that the reasoning behind your question is wrong?
In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators stated: “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 indured 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.”

Your question (if valid) would also apply to before 1611 if it supposedly applies today. The fact that you will not apply your own question to before 1611 would be evidence that it is an invalid question.

By his own standards, the 1611 Kjv was not the word of God to us in English!

 

[Yeshua1]

Respectfully,

Infallibility is not a modern concept:
Titus 1:2, Numbers 23:19, Hebrews 6:18...God, who cannot lie.
The Bible itself clearly establishes both God and His words to be infallible and incapable of lying in its every word.

Inerrancy is not a modern concept:
Psalms 12:6, Psalms 18:30, Psalms 19:8, Proverbs 30:5.
God's words are pure.

Therefore, any Bible that men can point to and have confidence in, should and would not deviate from the originals in any way, shape or form except in "tongue".
Any translation that God's people, who know His voice and follow Him and His words ( because they have "ears to hear" ), should serve as something they can point to and have comfort in.

For those that believe that inerrancy and infallibility disappeared with the originals, I'm sorry that you feel this way.
I have a Bible, and I can point to it and say with confidence that they are God's words in my own language.

While I disagree with George on many things ( even up to and including the tone of this thread ), I do agree that God's word does exist, it has been preserved and I know where to find it.
I also hold that any translation faithfully and accurately translated from that providentially preserved word can and will be trusted by Christ's sheep.

Finally, any faithful and accurate translation performed from that providentially preserved word, will reflect and carry through to the next language, the original infallibility and inerrancy of those very same originals.

ONLY Originals were imerrant and inspired!

 

[Yeshua1]

The sum:

While you fine Christians decry the humanistic and false claims of the world that truth is relative/there is no absolute truth; and that God, if he exists, has created and removed himself from the affairs of men, you apply precisely those very concepts to the Bible issue: there is no absolutely true Bible, all versions are relative, depending on each student's own perception, and God has inspired once and then removed himself from the process.

Faith hath no place. Humanistic textual criticism is the ultimate judge.

You all tell us: "There is no perfect Bible today."

And the serpent, and the atheists, and the Muslims, all agree with you.

It's Genesis 3:1, however much you couch it and change the subject.

This thread has shown that your issue indeed is not a denial of the the King James Version being inerrant, it's a denial of the Bible being inerrant period.
Confining yourself to the originals is a moot faith. It is meaningless, of no consequence, and is untestable - which is precisely why you're comfortable with it.
If a humanist points a mistake, then you just fall back on the invincible claim of "yeah but the originals were inerrant". The position is rightly laughable in the eyes of the lost; and it's not Biblical either.
Ehrman may be a fool, and an infidel, but at least he is more consistent than you. He rightly reasoned that inspiration without inerrant preservation is meaningless.
And by the way, I've met conservative Bible university students who now believe that the originals could have had mistakes.
Those are your spiritual children, for that's the logical next-step in the humanistic heritage you left them.

Even the 1611 translators disagree with you, as they did NOT see their work as neither perfect nor inspired!

 

[George Antonios]

Even the 1611 translators disagree with you, as they did NOT see their work as neither perfect nor inspired!

Neither did Paul sometimes!

2Co 7:8 For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season.

 

[Yeshua1]

Neither did Paul sometimes!

2Co 7:8 For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season.

He also was inspired!

 

[Van]

Lets see:
1) If I believe my version of the Bible (NASB) is trustworthy and reliable, but not perfect, I am anti-Christian.
2) If I believe copyists accidentally and on purpose altered the inspired text, I am anti-Christian.
3) If I believe translators accidentally and on purpose altered the inspired text, I am anti-Christian.
4) If i test the spirits of those presenting God's word, I am anti-Christian.

Got it!

 

[Hark]

Because that's the true issue.
You guys aren't so much against the inerrancy of the King James Bible as you are against the inerrancy of any Bible anywhere, in any tongue, in any version, of any age.
But it's a lot easier for you to appear to hold a Christian position when you focus on the KJB rather than expose your true colours:
you hold as a matter of doctrine, that the Bible, ANY Bible, is NOT perfect.
That position is antichristian, and is of the sepent, not the Holy Ghost.

So forget the KJB, what version that I could buy today, do you, pray tell, believe to be 100% given by inspiration?

Why not prove the Bible versions if they loved His words to keep the truth in His words?

John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. KJV

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. KJV

Can we really believe that the many Bible versions today are for to be easier to read or understand when we need His wisdom anyway even for the KJV?

So I believe the question is... are the Bible versions keeping the truth in His words? Since scripture cannot go against scripture for why the lost books are not in the Bible, then we can use that guideline to discern with Him which kept the truths in His words.

If all Bible versions says the truth that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself, but speak only what He hears in John 16:13, then ask yourself how can the Holy Spirit make intercessions, let alone, turn God's gift of tongues to speak unto the people around for Himself to be praying back to God out loud? Answer; John 16:13 says He cannot. But why would believers think otherwise? Romans 8:26-27 in most modern Bible versions is why, and yet the KJV kept the truth of John 16:13 by citing that the Holy Spirit makes silent intercessions as He cannot even utter His groanings in verse 26, whereas other modern versions implies wordless groans or some sound being uttered.

Romans 8:27 in the KJV explains how the silent intercessions of the Holy Spirit's is given to God the father by the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, that searches our hearts per Hebrews 4:12-16 & thus the One that knows the mind of the Spirit. That is why it is in according to the will of God because the man Christ Jesus, is the Only Mediator between God & men per 1 Timothy 2:5. This is the will of God so that after Jesus gives the Spirit's silent petitions, our own petitions, & the Son's own petitions, whichever ones the Father says yes to or agree with, permitting only the Son to answers the prayers per John 14:13-14 so that the Father may be glorified in the Son for answers to prayers. The Holy Spirit in all that He does, gives the credit & glory to Jesus Christ for the answers to prayers & in the ministry as well per John 16:14-15.

Now a lot of believers have gone astray today thinking tongues are for private use; 1 Corinthians 12:4-14,&19-21 are the precedent to read that tongues are not for private use in order to not misapply Paul's words in the 14th chapter when he is trying to exhort believers that if they seek any gift, they should seek the gift of prophesy & began comparing the 2 for why prophesy is better because tongues is not a stand alone gift that the tongue speaker has to pray or it is unfruitful to himself as that tongue speaker until it is. Paul gave the bottom line on tongues for what it is for so as to clarify that by the laws & the prophets, it was for God to speak unto the people in 1 Corinthians 14:20-21 & not to be used as a sign or proof for anything for the believer to know per 1 Corinthians 14:22.

But believer skips over chapter 12 as if those words do not apply, & skip over verses 20-22 in chapter 14 in favor of somehow thinking Paul was making the gift of tongues way better than prophesy for believers to seek after.

My point here is.. we do not have time to squabble over the typical KJV only arguments, but which Bible versions hold the truths in His words that they do not oppose each other so we can use the meat of His words to discern good & evil by it?

I'd say the KJV because the Holy Spirit cannot use God's gift of tongues for His own use, not even by groaning His intercessions back to God. When there is a supernatural tongue in the world that is gibberish nonsense as found in idolatry, occult ( Isaiah 8:19 ), & cults in Christianity, then how can God call sinners away from that tongue unless His gift is a foreign language & not gibberish nonsense?

.But all reasoning is thrown out. All you need is a modern Bible version to cast doubt to the truth in John 16:13 in all Bible versions to say maybe God did not really said that while saved believers go astray by a phenomenon wanting to believe it is of God so they wind up believing every spirit that falls on them after salvation is of God, ignoring John's warning in 1 John 4:1-6 in not believing every spirit but test them in according to our faith since 2 Corinthians 13:5 is the same thing as saying 1 John 4:2 that Jesus Christ is in us or as saying Jesus Christ "is come" in the flesh.. as dwelling in us. 1 John 4:3-4 confirms that is the rightly dividing of the word of truth for verse 2 but only Jesus Can confirm the word to you so don't forget to ask & trust Him as Your Good Shepherd to do this..

So do you think which Bible version keeps the truth as aligned in His words is the better question? I'd say the KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

Faith hath no place.

You continue your bogus, improper, unscriptural tactic of putting words in the mouths of others that they do not say.

Perhaps you are advocating unbiblical faith in assumptions based on fallacies or on assertions that are not true.

Do you suggest that faith contradicts truth or that true faith believes assertions that are not true?

 

[Logos1560]

Confining yourself to the originals is a moot faith. It is meaningless, of no consequence, and is untestable - which is precisely why you're comfortable with it.

Confining yourself to human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning is a moot faith. It is meaningless, of no consequence, and is untestable. The Scriptures even as translated in the KJV do not teach KJV-onlyism.

No one Hebrew OT manuscript or even printed Hebrew OT text based on multiple, varying manuscripts is named or identified by most KJV-only advocates as being the standard by which the KJV's OT can be tested because they may know that the KJV's OT is based on imperfect, multiple, textually-varying sources.

No one Greek NT manuscript or even pre-1611 printed Greek NT text based on multiple, varying Greek manuscripts is named or identified by most KJV-only advocates as being the standard by which the KJV's NT can be tested because they may know that the KJV's NT is based on imperfect, multiple, textually-varying printed editions and that it does not follow any one 100%.

 

[George Antonios]

He also was inspired!

Exactly! despite thinking he wasn't in this case.

 

[George Antonios]

Confining yourself to human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning is a moot faith. It is meaningless, of no consequence, and is untestable. The Scriptures even as translated in the KJV do not teach KJV-onlyism.

No one Hebrew OT manuscript or even printed Hebrew OT text based on multiple, varying manuscripts is named or identified by most KJV-only advocates as being the standard by which the KJV's OT can be tested because they may know that the KJV's OT is based on imperfect, multiple, textually-varying sources.

No one Greek NT manuscript or even pre-1611 printed Greek NT text based on multiple, varying Greek manuscripts is named or identified by most KJV-only advocates as being the standard by which the KJV's NT can be tested because they may know that the KJV's NT is based on imperfect, multiple, textually-varying printed editions and that it does not follow any one 100%.

Wow. Just wow. You just don't listen, or choose not to. Talk about putting words in people's mouths.

The OP's title is "FORGET THE KJB". And reads:

Because that's the true issue.
You guys aren't so much against the inerrancy of the King James Bible as you are against the inerrancy of any Bible anywhere, in any tongue, in any version, of any age.
But it's a lot easier for you to appear to hold a Christian position when you focus on the KJB rather than expose your true colours:
you hold as a matter of doctrine, that the Bible, ANY Bible, is NOT perfect.

Thanks for proving that so blatantly. I'll be showing your reply as an exemplary proof.

 

[George Antonios]

Lets see:
1) If I believe my version of the Bible (NASB) is trustworthy and reliable, but not perfect, I am anti-Christian.
2) If I believe copyists accidentally and on purpose altered the inspired text, I am anti-Christian.
3) If I believe translators accidentally and on purpose altered the inspired text, I am anti-Christian.
4) If i test the spirits of those presenting God's word, I am anti-Christian.

Got it!

Just answer the question in the OP rather than duck it.
Do you believe the NASB is 100% given by inspiration without any error of any kind, as trustworthy as the very original autographs? Yes or No?

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly! despite thinking he wasn't in this case.

Paul never doubted that he was called and sent as an Apostle by Lord Jesus!

 

[Van]

Just answer the question in the OP rather than duck it.
Do you believe the NASB is 100% given by inspiration without any error of any kind, as trustworthy as the very original autographs? Yes or No?

Asked and answered, see post # 49.

Lets see:
1) If I believe my version of the Bible (NASB) is trustworthy and reliable, but not perfect, I am anti-Christian.
2) If I believe copyists accidentally and on purpose altered the inspired text, I am anti-Christian.
3) If I believe translators accidentally and on purpose altered the inspired text, I am anti-Christian.
4) If I test the spirits of those presenting God's word, I am anti-Christian.
5) If I believe Christ uses "broken reeds" to further His ministry, I am anti-Christian.

Got it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why not prove the Bible versions if they loved His words to keep the truth in His words?

John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. KJV

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. KJV

Can we really believe that the many Bible versions today are for to be easier to read or understand when we need His wisdom anyway even for the KJV?

So I believe the question is... are the Bible versions keeping the truth in His words? Since scripture cannot go against scripture for why the lost books are not in the Bible, then we can use that guideline to discern with Him which kept the truths in His words.

If all Bible versions says the truth that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself, but speak only what He hears in John 16:13, then ask yourself how can the Holy Spirit make intercessions, let alone, turn God's gift of tongues to speak unto the people around for Himself to be praying back to God out loud? Answer; John 16:13 says He cannot. But why would believers think otherwise? Romans 8:26-27 in most modern Bible versions is why, and yet the KJV kept the truth of John 16:13 by citing that the Holy Spirit makes silent intercessions as He cannot even utter His groanings in verse 26, whereas other modern versions implies wordless groans or some sound being uttered.

Romans 8:27 in the KJV explains how the silent intercessions of the Holy Spirit's is given to God the father by the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, that searches our hearts per Hebrews 4:12-16 & thus the One that knows the mind of the Spirit. That is why it is in according to the will of God because the man Christ Jesus, is the Only Mediator between God & men per 1 Timothy 2:5. This is the will of God so that after Jesus gives the Spirit's silent petitions, our own petitions, & the Son's own petitions, whichever ones the Father says yes to or agree with, permitting only the Son to answers the prayers per John 14:13-14 so that the Father may be glorified in the Son for answers to prayers. The Holy Spirit in all that He does, gives the credit & glory to Jesus Christ for the answers to prayers & in the ministry as well per John 16:14-15.

Now a lot of believers have gone astray today thinking tongues are for private use; 1 Corinthians 12:4-14,&19-21 are the precedent to read that tongues are not for private use in order to not misapply Paul's words in the 14th chapter when he is trying to exhort believers that if they seek any gift, they should seek the gift of prophesy & began comparing the 2 for why prophesy is better because tongues is not a stand alone gift that the tongue speaker has to pray or it is unfruitful to himself as that tongue speaker until it is. Paul gave the bottom line on tongues for what it is for so as to clarify that by the laws & the prophets, it was for God to speak unto the people in 1 Corinthians 14:20-21 & not to be used as a sign or proof for anything for the believer to know per 1 Corinthians 14:22.

But believer skips over chapter 12 as if those words do not apply, & skip over verses 20-22 in chapter 14 in favor of somehow thinking Paul was making the gift of tongues way better than prophesy for believers to seek after.

My point here is.. we do not have time to squabble over the typical KJV only arguments, but which Bible versions hold the truths in His words that they do not oppose each other so we can use the meat of His words to discern good & evil by it?

I'd say the KJV because the Holy Spirit cannot use God's gift of tongues for His own use, not even by groaning His intercessions back to God. When there is a supernatural tongue in the world that is gibberish nonsense as found in idolatry, occult ( Isaiah 8:19 ), & cults in Christianity, then how can God call sinners away from that tongue unless His gift is a foreign language & not gibberish nonsense?

.But all reasoning is thrown out. All you need is a modern Bible version to cast doubt to the truth in John 16:13 in all Bible versions to say maybe God did not really said that while saved believers go astray by a phenomenon wanting to believe it is of God so they wind up believing every spirit that falls on them after salvation is of God, ignoring John's warning in 1 John 4:1-6 in not believing every spirit but test them in according to our faith since 2 Corinthians 13:5 is the same thing as saying 1 John 4:2 that Jesus Christ is in us or as saying Jesus Christ "is come" in the flesh.. as dwelling in us. 1 John 4:3-4 confirms that is the rightly dividing of the word of truth for verse 2 but only Jesus Can confirm the word to you so don't forget to ask & trust Him as Your Good Shepherd to do this..

So do you think which Bible version keeps the truth as aligned in His words is the better question? I'd say the KJV.

Circular reasoning logic, as you "prove" the Kjv by believing that it is the only word of the Lord!

 

[George Antonios]

Why not prove the Bible versions if they loved His words to keep the truth in His words?

John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. KJV

John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. KJV

Can we really believe that the many Bible versions today are for to be easier to read or understand when we need His wisdom anyway even for the KJV?

So I believe the question is... are the Bible versions keeping the truth in His words? Since scripture cannot go against scripture for why the lost books are not in the Bible, then we can use that guideline to discern with Him which kept the truths in His words.

If all Bible versions says the truth that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself, but speak only what He hears in John 16:13, then ask yourself how can the Holy Spirit make intercessions, let alone, turn God's gift of tongues to speak unto the people around for Himself to be praying back to God out loud? Answer; John 16:13 says He cannot. But why would believers think otherwise? Romans 8:26-27 in most modern Bible versions is why, and yet the KJV kept the truth of John 16:13 by citing that the Holy Spirit makes silent intercessions as He cannot even utter His groanings in verse 26, whereas other modern versions implies wordless groans or some sound being uttered.

Romans 8:27 in the KJV explains how the silent intercessions of the Holy Spirit's is given to God the father by the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, that searches our hearts per Hebrews 4:12-16 & thus the One that knows the mind of the Spirit. That is why it is in according to the will of God because the man Christ Jesus, is the Only Mediator between God & men per 1 Timothy 2:5. This is the will of God so that after Jesus gives the Spirit's silent petitions, our own petitions, & the Son's own petitions, whichever ones the Father says yes to or agree with, permitting only the Son to answers the prayers per John 14:13-14 so that the Father may be glorified in the Son for answers to prayers. The Holy Spirit in all that He does, gives the credit & glory to Jesus Christ for the answers to prayers & in the ministry as well per John 16:14-15.

Now a lot of believers have gone astray today thinking tongues are for private use; 1 Corinthians 12:4-14,&19-21 are the precedent to read that tongues are not for private use in order to not misapply Paul's words in the 14th chapter when he is trying to exhort believers that if they seek any gift, they should seek the gift of prophesy & began comparing the 2 for why prophesy is better because tongues is not a stand alone gift that the tongue speaker has to pray or it is unfruitful to himself as that tongue speaker until it is. Paul gave the bottom line on tongues for what it is for so as to clarify that by the laws & the prophets, it was for God to speak unto the people in 1 Corinthians 14:20-21 & not to be used as a sign or proof for anything for the believer to know per 1 Corinthians 14:22.

But believer skips over chapter 12 as if those words do not apply, & skip over verses 20-22 in chapter 14 in favor of somehow thinking Paul was making the gift of tongues way better than prophesy for believers to seek after.

My point here is.. we do not have time to squabble over the typical KJV only arguments, but which Bible versions hold the truths in His words that they do not oppose each other so we can use the meat of His words to discern good & evil by it?

I'd say the KJV because the Holy Spirit cannot use God's gift of tongues for His own use, not even by groaning His intercessions back to God. When there is a supernatural tongue in the world that is gibberish nonsense as found in idolatry, occult ( Isaiah 8:19 ), & cults in Christianity, then how can God call sinners away from that tongue unless His gift is a foreign language & not gibberish nonsense?

.But all reasoning is thrown out. All you need is a modern Bible version to cast doubt to the truth in John 16:13 in all Bible versions to say maybe God did not really said that while saved believers go astray by a phenomenon wanting to believe it is of God so they wind up believing every spirit that falls on them after salvation is of God, ignoring John's warning in 1 John 4:1-6 in not believing every spirit but test them in according to our faith since 2 Corinthians 13:5 is the same thing as saying 1 John 4:2 that Jesus Christ is in us or as saying Jesus Christ "is come" in the flesh.. as dwelling in us. 1 John 4:3-4 confirms that is the rightly dividing of the word of truth for verse 2 but only Jesus Can confirm the word to you so don't forget to ask & trust Him as Your Good Shepherd to do this..

So do you think which Bible version keeps the truth as aligned in His words is the better question? I'd say the KJV.

You didn't answer the question in the OP.

 

[George Antonios]

Paul never doubted that he was called and sent as an Apostle by Lord Jesus!

You changed the subject.