King James Bible - the accuracy debate.

Silas

asimovbot
Registered Senior Member
On the Nativity Star thread, ghost7584 wrote:
silas

The KJV is the real unaltered original translated into old English. The byzantine or textus receptus new testament and massoretic text of the Jews old testament.
1John 5:7 in the kjv was deleted in the modern versions by someone that did not believe in the trinity, in the 4th century in Egypt.
1 John 5:7 is by far not the only reason. Changes that were made to the scriptures in Alexandria, Egypt, by unbelieving philosophers, in the Alexandrian text, attack other important doctrines of the Christian faith.
You can go to this website and see for yourself how the changes that were made to the Alexandrian text, affect important doctrines of the Christian faith; the unsaved philosophers that made these changes were not real Christians.
http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html
Examples: The modern Alexandrian texts attack these doctrines:
The deity of Christ: 1 Timothy 3:16 " God was manifest in the flesh" - KJV
1 Tim. 3:16 " He who was revealed in the flesh - NAS

Heb. 2:11 " he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one" - KJV
Heb. 2:11 "he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin" - Revised Version
Christ did not have an origin: Jesus said before Abraham was I am,
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Psalms 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Micah 5:2 kjv whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting
Micah 5:2 Revised standard whose origin is from of old, from ancient days

Verse attacking the doctrine of salvation by faith:
1 Peter 2:2 kjv "desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby."
1 Peter 2:2 revised version "long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation"
Salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus and repentance, you do not grow up to it by doing works:
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Verse attacking ressurection of Christ:
Luke 24:6 KJV He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
Luke 24:6 " Remember how he told you while he was still in Gallilee - revised standard
It left out, he is not here, but is risen

Verse attacking word of God:
Luke 4:4 KJV And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Luke 4:4 " And Jesus answered him, It is written man shall not live on bread alone" NAS
Leaves out " but by every word of God"

Verses attacking the virgin birth:
Isaiah 7:14 KJV Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14 "behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son" - Revised Standard version
Is. 7:14 Good News Bible, "a young woman who is pregnant will have a son"

Luke 1:34 kjv
Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Luke 1:34 Revised standard "how shall this be since I have no husband"
The KJV plainly shows Mary to be a virgin: The revised standard opens up the possibility that she conceived a child by another man that was not Joseph.

Excerpts from
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry Burton. Find it here:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp


There are other examples of how the corrupted Alexandrian text modern Bible versions have changed the words aroung to attack important doctrines of the Christian faith.

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

The King James Version is God's true word in English. The modern versions come from a corrupted Alexandrian text that had the words changed in important places.

The New King James Bible (NKJV), has proven to be a hoax, and is not a true translation of the Textus Receptus. Some of the words were deliberately changed for reasons other than translation. http://www.llano.net/baptist/isnkjbwordofgod.htm

1 John 5:7 is in the textus receptus which was found in its original Greek form long before the fourteenth century. Research textus receptus on the internet. The textus receptus is the greek text of the New Testament that came from Antioch in Syria. This is the real original unaltered text. 1 John 5:7 was written by the apostle John and it is in the Syriatic Greek text.
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.
The Syriatic Greek text, the textus receptus was carried by Christian missionaries into Alexandria in Egypt where unbelieving philosophers changed the words around, creating the corrupted Alexandrian Greek text.
The Roman emporer Constantine, in the 4th century ordered a man named Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, to make him 50 Bibles for the newly formed roman catholic church, which is a mixture of pagan roman religion mixed with Christianity; in short, Rome hijacked Christianity and created a perverted form of Christianity which is not really Christian. Eusebius had a choice to make up the 50 bibles, for the roman catholic church, either using the Greek manuscripts from Alexandria, or the Greek manuscripts from Antioch. [Eusebius was not a real Christian. He did not believe that Jesus was God almighty. He falsely believed like Jehovah witnesses do today, that Jesus was a lesser God.]
1 John 5:7 was in the manuscripts from Antioch, and there was no way that Eusebius was going to use those manuscripts, because they disagreed with his personal false belief. So Eusebius chose the corrupted manuscripts from Alexandria Egypt, to make up the 50 greek bibles for the Roman catholic church. Egyptian philosophers, that believed like Eusebius did, had already removed 1 John 5:7 from the corrupted Alexandrian greek manuscripts. Jerome later translated this corrupted Greek text into the Latin Vulgate.
So you see that John the apostle wrote 1 John 5:7, and it was in the original Syriatic Greek text from Antioch, and it was around before the 4th century.
References:
CONSTANTINE, published by Ramsay Mc mullen page 112
Sabotage, magazine by Jack Chick
For an in depth study of what was done to the manuscripts in Alexandria read these books:
WHICH BIBLE by David Otis Fuller, Institure for biblical textual studies,
2233 Michigan st. NE Grand Rapids, MI 49503
GOD ONLY WROTE ONE BIBLE, by J. J. Ray, the eye opener publishers, P. O. Box, 7944 Eugene, OR 97401
MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, by P. S. Ruckman, Bible baptist bookstore, P. O. Box 7135 Pensacola Fl. 32534
THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED, by Edward F. Hills, THD. order from the eye opener publishers, P. O. box 7944 Eugene OR 97401

Website about corrupt manuscripts and corrupt Bible versions:
http://www.avpublications.com/

1.) The publisher of obscene material, Rupert Murdoch, controls the printing of the NIV.
2.) NIV stylist, Virginia Mollencott, is a lesbian, who promotes witch covens.
3.) The NIV usually matches the changes and omissions in the Jehovah Witness Bible.
4.) The word 'Lucifier', in Hebrew, cannot be translated 'morning star'.

5.) The NIV changes basic Bible doctrines.
6.) There are differences between NIV printings.
NIV Documentation $5.95
(Xerox copies)

How often have you heard a Bible teacher say, "The word here actually means," only to have him unknowingly parrot new version readings — all because he is unfamiliar with the corruption which has affected his Greek and Hebrew reference books (Strongs, Vines, Thayer, Gesenius, Brown, Driver, Briggs, Liddell and Scott, etc.)?

Partial List of Corrupt New Versions
AMP Amplified Version ASV American Standard Version CEV Contemporary English Version KJ21 21st Century King James Version NAB New American Bible (RC) NASB New American Standard Bible NCV New Century Version NIV New International Version NIVI New International Version Inclusive NKJV New King James Version NLT New Living Translation (The Book) NRSV New Revised Standard Version RSV Revised Standard Version RV Revised Version TEV Today's English Version (Good News For Modern Man)

The manuscripts from which the textus receptus was taken are the majority of the Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. The King James was translated from these manuscripts. There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% accounts for the differences between the King James and the modern versions. The textus receptus, King James, does not include the vaticanus and sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandrian Egypt; these are the corrupted manuscripts in question. Manuscripts from which the modern versions are translated includes the textus receptus plus the vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. The modern versions had to use the textus receptus since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that when the textus receptus disagreed with the vaticanus or sainaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the textus receptus. That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Where the textus receptus and the vaticanus and sinaiticus do not agree, it is because Marcion, 120 - 160 AD or Origin 184 - 254 AD [or whoever] corrupted those two manuscripts. (The vaticanus and sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.)
The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been passed down through the centuries by true Bible believing Christians. In 1516 Erasmus compiled and printed the Greek (textus receptus) the received text, from these manuscripts. This is the text that the protestants of the reformation knew to be the Word of God, from which the King James Bible was translated.

John Burgon, who spent years studying the texts wrote:
Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable. On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or whole sentences are frequently written twice over or begun and immediately cancelled. A whole clause omitted, because it happens to end in the words of the clause preceeding happens 115 times in the New Testament.
The above is excerpts from the book:
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry Burton. Find it here:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp
This was such an excellent post from someone I consider an adversary, that I felt it deserved its own thread - as it was getting considerably off-topic for the thread it was on. So I'm reposting my responses here.
 
Last edited:
In answer to some of your points, I will first point out that I won't countenance any "arguments" proceeding from that virulent extremist indoctrinator, Jack Chick. That guy draws pretty little cartoons which basically say that all Catholics are satanists destined for Hell with no patriotism for their country. That kind of vicious 17th Century sectarianism has no place in rational debate, in my view.

ghost7584 said:
The publisher of obscene material, Rupert Murdoch, controls the printing of the NIV.
Ah, I wondered why there's a photograph of a topless girl on page 3 of my NIV!
ghost7584 said:
2.) NIV stylist, Virginia Mollencott, is a lesbian, who promotes witch covens.
Another thing that has no place in rational debate is ludicrous ad hominem attacks on individuals who happen to be connected to the organisation you are attacking (and I'm assuming that you intended "lesbian" as a derogatory term, although it isn't anything of the kind, of course). I don't particularly support the NIV myself, but I like to think I would restrict my disagreements to it with what is written in the book itself rather than exactly who contributed to it. (And I'm afraid I don't quite know what you mean by "stylist" - I don't generally get haircuts from my bibles....)
ghost7584 said:
4.) The word 'Lucifier', in Hebrew, cannot be translated 'morning star'.
Yes it can, and if you don't translate it as such it doesn't make any sense in the context.

I took a look at that www.avpublications.com link - I'm afraid that looks rather like Kabbalistic nonsense not dissimilar to the Bible Code.

Having taken careful consideration of your points, I've learned a great deal about the different kinds of text from which the Bible is translated. Again, I'm very grateful for your links, ghost7584.

Doing my own research I found this interesting article about the difference between Westcott-Hort and the textus receptus which contains a great deal about the history of both texts. That leads you to a site called www.kjvonly.com which, by the way, is totally misleadingly named! They are not pro-KJV Only views, they are against them. In fact they refer to "KJV Only-ism" as a heresy.

Let me state that in terms of beauty, poetry and majesty of prose there is certainly no better English translation in existence. But there are many obscurities and bad translations within it, nonetheless. You've defended the KJV very well and vigorously using a plethora of sources, but your argument boils down to, "The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus". But how good is the textus receptus, really? If every modern Bible (including the NKJB) omits those items such as the back half of 1 John 5:7 it is because the almost unanimous consensus of opinion is that it's a late addition made by someone with doctrinal issues of his own. It's in Erasmus, but not in any extant Greek contemporaneous or near-contemporaneus manuscript.
ghost7584 said:
The deity of Christ: 1 Timothy 3:16 " God was manifest in the flesh" - KJV
1 Tim. 3:16 " He who was revealed in the flesh - NAS

Heb. 2:11 " he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one" - KJV
Heb. 2:11 "he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin" - Revised Version
Christ did not have an origin: Jesus said before Abraham was I am,
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Psalms 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Micah 5:2 kjv whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting
Micah 5:2 Revised standard whose origin is from of old, from ancient days

Verse attacking the doctrine of salvation by faith:
1 Peter 2:2 kjv "desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby."
1 Peter 2:2 revised version "long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation"
Salvation is obtained through faith in Jesus and repentance, you do not grow up to it by doing works:
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Verse attacking ressurection of Christ:
Luke 24:6 KJV He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
Luke 24:6 " Remember how he told you while he was still in Gallilee - revised standard
It left out, he is not here, but is risen

Verse attacking word of God:
Luke 4:4 KJV And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Luke 4:4 " And Jesus answered him, It is written man shall not live on bread alone" NAS
Leaves out " but by every word of God"

Verses attacking the virgin birth:
Isaiah 7:14 KJV Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14 "behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son" - Revised Standard version
Is. 7:14 Good News Bible, "a young woman who is pregnant will have a son"

Luke 1:34 kjv
Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Luke 1:34 Revised standard "how shall this be since I have no husband"
The KJV plainly shows Mary to be a virgin: The revised standard opens up the possibility that she conceived a child by another man that was not Joseph.
But you cannot seriously suggest that the producers of these Bibles do not themselves believe in these doctrines? They aren't attacking the divinity of Christ, nor the Virgin Birth, nor the Resurrection! I personally believe that these doctrines (already evident in other parts of the Bible) were slipped into the textus receptus after they had already been adopted by the Church, in order to bolster their authority. The RSV and the NRSV in particular are trying to obtain the best translation of the words from the best versions of the ancient texts that they have - and if scholarship acknowledges that some parts of ancient texts are without foundation then that's all for the better in my view.
 
Last edited:
On another thread, ghost7584 said:
ghost7584 said:
AMP Amplified Version ASV American Standard Version CEV Contemporary English Version KJ21 21st Century King James Version NAB New American Bible (RC) NASB New American Standard Bible NCV New Century Version NIV New International Version NIVI New International Version Inclusive NKJV New King James Version NLT New Living Translation (The Book) NRSV New Revised Standard Version RSV Revised Standard Version RV Revised Version TEV Today's English Version (Good News For Modern Man)

[...]

The real unaltered Bible, translated into middle English is the King James version.
The modern versions are fake bibles with the words changed; 5% error.
Roman catholic bibles all have the corrupted Alexandrian text mixed in. The catholic church is behind the publishing of all of these fake bibles. They are trying to push the protestant bible, the kjv, out of the way and replace it with their corrupted Alexandrian text bibles.
This is arrant nonsense. Nearly all the modern versions are fairly liberal attempts to bring the Protestant bible (ie without the Catholic Apocryphal books) into 20th/21st Century English by Protestant evangelical churches, in order to expand their ministry. If you can possibly think the highly conservative Catholic Church would sponsor or remotely agree with any of those translations you cited, you are deluded. Some of them are produced, on the other hand, by Conservative Protestant bible organisations who would be highly affronted at the implication that they were being infiltrated by Catholics, of all things.

I would not at all disagree, however, that these Bibles are all vastly inferior to the King James bible for poetry, for euphony, for sheer majesty. But that does not imply that the King James Bible is necessarily free of error in the translation of specific words and idioms.
 
Last edited:
The claim to the sole authority of the King James version relies almost solely on the academic ignorance of the "lay" person.

You can't compare two translations and conclude that 'this' has been changed or 'that' has been taken out. The "NIV" itself never changed any word, nor did any other version. It is a translation, and therefore any passage or word that is or isn't there comes from the source that was used. To simply accuse the character of the translators or the dark motives behind their choice of words isn't enough to discredit a translation. Allegations have to be supported somehow, yet simply quoting the KJV isn't a valid argument, since the KJV must be subjected to the same scrutiny (being a translation itself).

This is what happens when a Bible becomes idolized, and the truth has to make way for agendas. In their earnest quest to use only the best, most accurate manuscripts, and scholarly responsible methods in translation, many translators choose to work with earlier and more well-attested documents, as well as include new discoveries (such as those at Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls) and advanced methods, rather than rely solely on the later or even more generally accepted ("received") manuscripts -- even if it means having to leave out biased translations or favourable passages. This is honesty, not dishonesty.

No doubt the Greek and Latin manuscripts are more likely to show many Christian doctrines voiced more clearly, but that doesn't mean they are absent in the older manuscripts (and therefore the newer translations). Such allegations only show unhealthy paranoia and a pathological distrust that doesn't belong among Christians.

PS. I found this Wikipedia article a very helpful overview.
 
what i don't seem to be aware of reading here is any awareness about literary devices being employed in writing myth.

THE book that turned me onto looking more closely at mythologies was Professor JM.Allegro's very controversial book, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. I was amazed and intrigued--from Allegro's dmeonstrations--of just how layered the myths are. and that from a superficial literalist story there also are deper to be read, allusions, metaphor, word-play and puns, transliterations, etc.
This is same for both pagan and abrahamic mythologies. so it is quite amusing, and sad, to see here these texts ben takien at face value with no mention of those other 'hidden' meanings which allude to stuff for the eyes of the intitiated

ot that THAt is the 'word of God' or 'right'. but surely it needs KNOWING about? otherwise we are in fool-territory, and are ignore-ant
 
Ghost's defence of the KJV as the "true word of God" etc does infer that the "Textus Receptus" is infallible.

Unfortunately the history of the TR is not as neat as Ghost would have you believe.
This gives a brief overview, describing the various differing versions of the TR.
It also details the flaws in the KJV.

Now I haven't much studied the origins of the various Bibles, but it is obvious to me from what little I have read that the KJV is not as accurate a reproduction of the original scripts as its supporters would have you believe.

Not only are there the "translation by committee" problems it went through, plus the other inherent problems with translating texts from an archaic language (even in the 1500s the text of the original source documents, from over 1000 years previously, was deemed archaic and not fully understood), but there is the obvious problem of the authenticity/accuracy of those original source documents, as stated by Ghost himself.
 
Oh, thank heavens, I thought I was going to be the only one to contribute! Thanks for that wikipedia link, Jenyar - I've had a hard time of it trying to deduce the theological position of each translation based on website links!

That's a very good link you posted as well, Sarkus.
 
Last edited:
Can I again reiterate my thanks to everybody who has contributed (including ghost7584, by the way). I've learned more from reading about this subject than almost anything I've else encountered at sciforums.com, and I've found it most satisfying, intellectually.
 
duendy: what i don't seem to be aware of reading here is any awareness about literary devices being employed in writing myth.

THE book that turned me onto looking more closely at mythologies was Professor JM.Allegro's very controversial book, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. I was amazed and intrigued--from Allegro's dmeonstrations--of just how layered the myths are. and that from a superficial literalist story there also are deper to be read, allusions, metaphor, word-play and puns, transliterations, etc.
This is same for both pagan and abrahamic mythologies. so it is quite amusing, and sad, to see here these texts ben takien at face value with no mention of those other 'hidden' meanings which allude to stuff for the eyes of the intitiated

ot that THAt is the 'word of God' or 'right'. but surely it needs KNOWING about? otherwise we are in fool-territory, and are ignore-ant
*************
M*W: duendy, there had to be something more than words for this human race to believe! Whether it be sexual ecstacy or mushroom ecstacy, it had to be. Without ecstacy, there is no faith! All the nincompoops who believe in the bible, preachers and religion, are liars. They long for the ecstacy, but they do not receive it! How sad! Christianity is a false ecstacy. I know you know that! There is no dying demigod savior who gives us ecstacy. Ecstacy comes from within. The capacity for ecstacy is ours for the taking. I feel quite sure Jesus experienced ecstacy with Mary Magdalen.
 
I'im sure he did, Medicine Woman, but that was hardly the kind of ecstacy you're talking about... is it? And over the last few centuries, many, many women had faith without any kind of ecstacy. Count yourself lucky to live in a world in which the woman's right to ecstacy is taken for granted (at least by me), regardless of your Christian faith or absence of.

Written when out of my head on Jack Daniels
 
Silas: I'im sure he did, Medicine Woman, but that was hardly the kind of ecstacy you're talking about... is it? And over the last few centuries, many, many women had faith without any kind of ecstacy. Count yourself lucky to live in a world in which the woman's right to ecstacy is taken for granted (at least by me), regardless of your Christian faith or absence of.

Written when out of my head on Jack Daniels
*************
M*W: I guess ecstacy is a personal thing. For the starving, food would be ecstacy. For the religious, faith might be ecstacy. For Jesus... I believe his relationship with MM brought him ecstacy. For me... well... just tell Jack I said hello.
 
quelquechosedautre, please take your sectarian and verging on anti-semitic shit elsewhere.
 
You will find any and all bibles are based on myth and fairy tale, and by definition are completely inaccurate.
 
Another conspiracy theory of impending-doom-nobody-can-do-anything-about-anyway, and aren't we just so fortunate that quelquechosedautre (had to copy-and-paste that) is privy to this crucial information. And the Bible Code is the key... who would have thought?

A study in hysteria:
The professor and his colleagues plan to build a machine to test whether it's possible to transport a subatomic particle through time using a ring of light.

He hopes the energy from a rotating laser beam may warp the space inside the ring of the light so gravity forces the neutron to rotate sideways. With more energy, he thinks it's possible a second neutron would appear. This second particle would be the first one visiting itself from the future.
...leads to:
"...it would allow a ZERO delivery time for flight path of a foreign missile to its target in the USA and/or the detonation somehere else in the world of a nuke and it`s transferance to New York by sending the blast a few hours forward in time to allow the natuarl rotation of the earth to place it in downtown Manhattan."​
 
Can all this crap be put on its own thread, please? This has nothing whatsoever to do with KJV accuracy.
 
Actually this is one thing that has always confused me. I have a KJV Bible and my Finacee' has a NIV bible. I am just about to embark on a indepth study into the bible using various guides to help me - which would be the best one to use?
 
Both, at least. They follow different translation philosophies and are from different manuscript traditions. There is another thread here somewhere about Bible versions. you could try looking it up.
 
Jenyar said:
Both, at least. They follow different translation philosophies and are from different manuscript traditions. There is another thread here somewhere about Bible versions. you could try looking it up.


Ta. Will do.
 
Silvertusk said:
Ta. Will do.
I looked it up for you: the thread can be found here. If I recall there was a lot of cross-posting among a few threads, so you might find more if you do a search.

Please ask if you have more questions!
 
Back
Top