In defense of the King James Bible and doctrine

[Conan]

The KJ3 Literal Translation by Jay Green (1918-2008) was perhaps last printed in 2010. I have seen a copy of its New Testament for sale on amazon. You have to look for used copies on ebay or other places to find one. I purchased one last year. I had ordered a copy of it from Jay Green many years ago, but I never received it.

You are not the only person that did not get paid for books from Jay Green.

 

[Logos1560]

Here you will find information regarding the King James Bible and the Bible Version issue, a subject that should be of the highest concern to the Christian.

The KJV-only web sites that you recommend do not present any positive, clear, consistent, sound, logical, true, and scriptural case for a modern KJV-only view.

The Bible doctrine of preservation would concern the exact same words given by God to the prophets and apostles, which would be the original-language words of Scripture, and you have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that it concerns the different words in English. You ignore the fact that the KJV omits giving any English word/rendering for many preserved original-language words of Scripture and the KJV adds many words in English for which it has no original-language words of Scripture.

Your present likely post-1900 KJV edition adds over 190 whole words in English that were not found in the original 1611 KJV edition.

You do not back up the assertions that you have posted.

 

[Lewis HB]

We respectfully differ from your position. To us Fundimental bible believing baptists, God said He would preserve His Word the Bible, and in our final generation He has donec so in the KJV. We believe this will soon be evident when we see Jesus.

 

[Conan]

Changes in the King James version

 

[SovereignGrace]

Dear Brother David Lamb ... you asked a great questtion "Why not translate the original Hebrew and Greek directly into Spanish?"
We of the KJV ONLY belief believe what God said when He said "He will preserve His word" We believe God preserved His inherant breathed Word in the English language in the KJV, just like He preserved His word thousands of years ago in every major world Western language.
Since it is impossible to translate exactly from one language ((Greek into English for example)) into another, God chose to preserve His bible in the KJV. Yes while I realize this idea will cause many to scribble furiously,> It is a question that needed to be answered! Thankyou Bro David

Ppl believed a space ship was on the tale end of the Hale Bopp comet and committed suicide to escape the world and get onboard that comet. Just because you believe something, no matter how much you are convinced, does not make it true.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Changes in the King James version

 

[Logos1560]

We respectfully differ from your position. To us Fundimental bible believing baptists, God said He would preserve His Word the Bible, and in our final generation He has donec so in the KJV.

I am a fundamental Bible-believing Baptist who believes that God has preserved His Scriptures, that God was just as faithful to preserve the Scriptures before 1611 as after 1611. I believe and accept all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves. The Bible doctrine of preservation would concern the exact same words given by God to the prophets and apostles, which would be the original-language words of Scripture, and you have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that it concerns the different words in English.

The word of God was translated into English many years before 1611. Preservation of the Scriptures did not begin in 1611. Inconsistent KJV-only teaching does not seem to advocate a consistent view of preservation that is true before 1611 as well as claimed to be true after 1611. Inconsistent KJV-only teaching suggests that God did not preserve His words in the same sense for English-speaking believers before 1611 as they assert that God has to do after 1611. KJV-only teaching seems to try to dictate to God how He has to preserve His words instead of accepting what the Scriptures actually teach. The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611.

A modern KJV-only view conflicts with the New Testament doctrine of the priesthood of all believers as it seems to make the KJV translators into some kind of exclusive priesthood who stand between believers and the word of God.

 

[37818]

My apologies. I had said about 10% of Greek Manuscripts contained Acts 8:37. It is actually 15%.

The Text of the Gospels

www.thetextofthegospels.com

Acts 8:37 is only supported by about 15% of the Greek manuscripts of Acts, but it was used by Irenaeus (in Book 3, 12:8 of Against Heresies, written c. 180, long before the earliest existing manuscript of this part of Acts was made), by Cyprian (in the 200s, in Book Three of his Testimonies, Treatise 12, chapter 43), by Pontus the Deacon (in the mid-200s), by Pacian of Barcelona (late 300s), and by Augustine (early 400s); it is also in the Coptic (Egyptian) manuscript known as the Glazier Codex (made in the 400s or 500s

It is my understanding 88% of Acts mss omit 8:37. And 0.6% mss have the KJV TR reading.