Reasons for Accepting the KJV as God's Preserved Word

[AKJVReader]

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 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.
   [*]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.
   [*]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 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.
   [*]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.
   [*]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?
   [*]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.]
   [*]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.
   [*]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!

 

[Hitch]

PGE.

 

[AKJVReader]

Stand in the Old Paths

Friends, I am glad that God has given me a dependable Bible in the English language, and that I don't have to base my Christian life upon the ever-changing world of the modern versions. When I stand on the Authorized Version, I am standing on a translation that is the product of an intensive series of scholarly revisions beginning with the masterly version of the martyr William Tyndale and ending with the unparalleled committee appointed by King James I. It came from the fires of persecution. It was created at the apex of the development of the English language. It has stood the test of time, and I have found that those who want to understand it can do so. Every type of Bible study tool is available to help people understand the Authorized Version.
I am also glad for those churches which stand in the old paths and do not entertain every innovation that comes along, that have an absolute Biblical authority in the Authorized Version, and have, therefore, true biblical unity of mind and heart in that the members accept the same Bible standard.
Those who don't like absolute Biblical authority are delighted with the modern versions. The ecumenical crowd loves the modern versions. Rome loves them [in addition to her papal pronouncements, traditions, and dogmas, of course.] The modernist loves them [though he doesn't believe a word of them.] The cults love them [though they love their own authoritative writings more.] New Evangelicals love them [especially that part about "judge not."] The charismatic crowd [when they are not too busy flopping around on the floor and laughing hysterically or otherwise occupied with some weird experience] loves them.
An absolute "thus saith the Lord" has been replaced with "some manuscripts say this and some say that and we aren't sure of anything but we are definitely scholarly." Every man can be his own little god and can pick and choose among the plethora of versions the "word of God" which feels right for him.
That's not for me, and I trust it is not for you, either, dear reader. Stand in the old paths. You won't regret it.

Conclusion

The prediction we made in 1997 is now a reality, but it was not a difficult one to make. Even a cursory look at the Bible publishing industry today would convince most people that they are in the business for money. Period. If Revelation 22:18-19 is true, they are in BIG trouble.
"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: 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."

 

[reba]

Authorized by who?

 

[AKJVReader]

Answer: Despite stories to the contrary, King James, in no uncertain terms, clearly authorized the translation of the Bible that now bears his name. The King James Bible was "Authorized" to be translated as God's Word for the English-speaking people of the world. God bless you as you study His authorized and preserved words in English, the King James Bible.

<center>[SIZE=-1]THE[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]HOLY BIBLE[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]CONTAINING THE
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES:
AND WITH THE FORMER TRANSLATIONS
DILIGENTLY COMPARED AND REVISED
BY HIS MAJESTY'S SPECIAL COMMAND[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]APPOINTED TO BE READ IN CHURCHES

[/SIZE]

For more see:

​

[SIZE=-2] [/SIZE]

Search CHICK.COM

The King James Bible Defended!

Why I Read the Authorized King James Version
​

[SIZE=-2]
[/SIZE] </center>​

 

[handy]

Just out of curiosity AKJV, does your Bible contain the Apocrypha?

 

[AKJVReader]

Just out of curiosity AKJV, does your Bible contain the Apocrypha?

No it doesn't

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible?​

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthrow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanies is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:

QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha?
ANSWER: Yes.
EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscnpts.

That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

6. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt, must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture. ​

 

[handy]

np...I was just curious...I know that many of the newer KJV's drop the Apocrypha but that the 1611 version had it in.

 

[Jarred]

I found a 1611 KJV at walmart. 400th anniversary addition. Of course I bought it! I'm just as amazed as you might be lol The way they spelled some words makes you have to read it kind of slow(well it makes me have to anyway) but I have my other KJV too to help so its no big deal. Oh and they didn't put the Apocrypha in it either. Also cool.

 

[AKJVReader]

GOD'S REVELATION HAS BEEN PRESERVED FOR ALL TIME.

• 1 Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever."
• Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever."
• Ps. 111:7-8 "The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness."
• Is. 40:8 "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
• Ps. 117:2 "... the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord."
• Ps. 119:152 "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever."
• Ps 119:160 "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

Just as the doctrine of inspiration is considered to be foundational to our understanding of the Bible, so should be the doctrine of preservation. They are inextricably linked. An inspired Bible that was not preserved would be little more than a tainted book of history and moral lessons. Indeed, this is exactly what the Bible represents in the minds of the men in our day. The Bible's authority is only as great as our confidence in its reliability. A Bible which was delivered to us inspired, and then was allowed to leaven with the accumulated errors of thousands of years, would hardly point to an all-powerful, all-wise Creator. It would be difficult to entrust our salvation in Jesus Christ to the very same God who could not keep His word. In fact, if God's word has not been perfectly preserved as He has told us, how can we be certain about the security of our salvation? Thankfully, we don't need to concern ourselves with such things, because just as God promised us that no one could "pluck" His believers out of His hand, He promised that He would keep His words pure forever.

This aspect of God's preservation of Scripture is just as crucial as the first. So that we could not mistake His intentions, the Lord spelled out to what degree He would keep the Scriptures pure. He promised us that He would preserve even the very words. We don't have to wonder whether God merely preserved his thoughts, or his ideas. We know that the very means by which we communicate to each other - words - are crucially important to God. As we read earlier, we live by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Our Savior tells us that we require not only physical food, but spiritual food as well. Does it seem reasonable that God would feed our souls with anything less than the best? If every word is important, does it not make sense that God would preserve all of His words so that we might nourished and strengthened? What mother would feed her children tainted milk? Really, it is irrelevant whether it "makes sense" or seems reasonable. Our only question ought to be, "What sayeth the Lord?" The preceding verses show that God has told us that His every word has been preserved.

HIS WORD HAS BEEN KEPT AVAILABLE TO EACH AND EVERY GENERATION

Even with all their care, some erroneous copies might have been made. However, we know God preserved His words in spite of fallible men! In the New Testament, the Lord told us that He would preserve His word through men of faith. He promised that when the Holy Spirit came, that His believers would be led to truth: Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: (John 16:13)

 

[kiwimac]

Let's take these claims one at a time shall we?

[*]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?

Psalm 12:6-7: this statement comes straight out of Wilkinson's book. Those who insist that these verses refer to the "Words of God" have apparently never read the AV1611, the original KJV, which has this marginal note for them in V7: "Heb. him, I. euery one of them." The AV translators themselves agreed with all the modern versions and believed that V7 is about PEOPLE. They merely subbed plural them for singular him.

[*]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.

The KJ Bible has a permanent Crown Copyright. It cannot be duplicated at all in the UK and the Commonwealth. The modern translations are NOT perversions at all.

[*]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.

The same was said for the Latin Vulgate, the Geneva, Bishops and Tyndale versions of the Bible. As for the snide remarks about modern Christians, they have no place here and BTW, please PROVE that the Holy Spirit does not like the new versions.

[*]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.]

Keep your dispensationalism to yourself.

[*]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.

And this is important why? All Modern versions reference disputed words and meanings of the Bible. As for their honesty in translations please note the following:

Bishops Gen 6:5
But God sawe that the malice of man was great in the earth, and all the imagination of the thoughtes of his heart [was] only euyll euery day.

KJV Gen 6:5
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Was it really necessary to change “But†to “And�
Was it really necessary to change “malice†to “wickedness�
Was it really necessary to change “all the imagination†to “every imagination�
Was it really necessary to change “every day†to “continually�

Source

[*]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.

Rot. Modern versions mention the KJV because it one that most English speakers have heard of. This is not a comparison, simply a nod in passing.

[*]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?

This is what the KJV translators had to say about other versions of the Bible:
". . . Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King’s speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. . ."

[*]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.]

Rot. The KJV is not the standard for translation, the Greek and Hebrew are.

[*]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.

No one argues that it is not. It is simply a dated translation which used poorer MSS than are currently available to translators today.

[*]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!

What a lot of nonsense. Show me any modern translation which attacks Christ's deity.

 

[kiwimac]

Stand in the Old Paths

Friends, I am glad that God has given me a dependable Bible in the English language, and that I don't have to base my Christian life upon the ever-changing world of the modern versions. When I stand on the Authorized Version, I am standing on a translation that is the product of an intensive series of scholarly revisions beginning with the masterly version of the martyr William Tyndale and ending with the unparalleled committee appointed by King James I. It came from the fires of persecution. It was created at the apex of the development of the English language. It has stood the test of time, and I have found that those who want to understand it can do so. Every type of Bible study tool is available to help people understand the Authorized Version.
I am also glad for those churches which stand in the old paths and do not entertain every innovation that comes along, that have an absolute Biblical authority in the Authorized Version, and have, therefore, true biblical unity of mind and heart in that the members accept the same Bible standard.
Those who don't like absolute Biblical authority are delighted with the modern versions. The ecumenical crowd loves the modern versions. Rome loves them [in addition to her papal pronouncements, traditions, and dogmas, of course.] The modernist loves them [though he doesn't believe a word of them.] The cults love them [though they love their own authoritative writings more.] New Evangelicals love them [especially that part about "judge not."] The charismatic crowd [when they are not too busy flopping around on the floor and laughing hysterically or otherwise occupied with some weird experience] loves them.
An absolute "thus saith the Lord" has been replaced with "some manuscripts say this and some say that and we aren't sure of anything but we are definitely scholarly." Every man can be his own little god and can pick and choose among the plethora of versions the "word of God" which feels right for him.
That's not for me, and I trust it is not for you, either, dear reader. Stand in the old paths. You won't regret it.

Conclusion

The prediction we made in 1997 is now a reality, but it was not a difficult one to make. Even a cursory look at the Bible publishing industry today would convince most people that they are in the business for money. Period. If Revelation 22:18-19 is true, they are in BIG trouble.
"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: 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."

Please either source your quotes or don't use them.

 

[AKJVReader]

What a lot of nonsense. Show me any modern translation which attacks Christ's deity.

That's an easy one:

We will begin examining the belief that Joseph and Mary was His father and mother. Luke 2:33 reads as follows:
New International Version (NIV)- The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.
New American Standard Version (NASV)- And his father and his mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning him;
New World Translation (NWT)- And its father and mother continued wondering at the things being spoken about it.
King James Version (KJV)- And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Notice how the NIV, NASV, and NWT all agree in calling Joseph Jesus’ “father”. The KJV rightly states “Joseph” instead of “father” knowing that Joseph was not Jesus’ Father.

Another attack on the Sonship of Jesus can be found in Acts 3:13, 4:27, and 4:30. For the article we will only look at Acts 3:13:
NIV- The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.
NASV- The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus;
NWT- The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus,
KJV- The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus;
Again, the NIV and the NASV stand shoulder to shoulder with the NWT. Now Jesus is no longer a “Son” but rather a “servant”.

Now we want to look at Phil. 2:6. This is a very familiar verse that should be well-known to most. Pay special attention to the wording of each Bible. (emphasis mine)
NIV- Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
NASV- who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
NWT- who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
KJV- Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Did Jesus consider Himself equal with God or not? Both cannot be correct! Here the NIV, NASV, and NWT all agree, however, they are in direct opposition to what the KJV says. The NIV, NASV, and NWT clearly contradict the teaching of the Trinity and negates much of the teaching of past church history. It is easy to see how and why the NWT does so but what about the NIV and NASV? Again we see that the NIV and the NASV side with the Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible in detracting from the Deity of Christ.

Next we want to look at what perhaps is the greatest statement in scripture declaring that Jesus was “God”. Nothing could be more clearer about the Deity of Christ than I Tim. 3:16. Let’s see how the various translations handle this verse.
NIV- Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body,...
NASV- And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh,
NWT- Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh,...’
KJV- And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,
Here it is easy to see why the Jehovah’s Witnesses translated this verse as they did since they completely reject that Jesus was “God manifest in the flesh”. It is quite shameful that the NIV and the NASV have followed along with this corrupt work in changing “God” to “He”. Of course “He” appeared in a body, Paul appeared in a body, you appeared in a body, and I appeared in a body. The NIV and the NASV have completely changed the essence of this verse by translating it as “He”. Despite the overwhelming manuscript evidence the NIV and the NASV alter their text to read “He”. Dean Burgon, perhaps the greatest scholar ever, had this to say, “The reading adopted by the revisors, is not found in more than two copies, is not supported by a single version, and is not clearly advocated by a single Father.” I am not going to cover all the evidence for the reading “God”, as found in the KJV, in this essay. I will, however, devote another whole essay to I Tim. 3:16. In it we can look at the reading “God” in much greater detail.

Perhaps one of the most favorite verses of the modern version propionate is I John 5:7. I John 5:7 is one of the clearest verses on the Trinity in the entire Bible. Here we see clearly that Jesus and God are one. I John 5:7 reads as follows:
NIV- For there are three that testify:
NASV- And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
NWT- For there are three witness bearers,
KJV- For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (emphasis mine)
Here you can see that the NIV and the NASV are again in agreement with the NWT. They each omit the wonderful phrase “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” which plainly speaks of Jesus’ Deity. Again we can see that the NIV and NASV have sided with the NWT in denying the Deity of Christ. Since there is so much controversy regarding I John 5:7 I will discuss this verse in greater detail in another essay.

To see more:
The Deity of Christ* and Modern Versions

 

[Alabaster]

In Luke 2:33 in almost all translations, Joseph is omitted. In fact, I looked it up in 25 different versions, and Joseph is mentioned in only 3 of them. It makes no difference. Joseph was the father that God set in place for him.

This KJV only stuff is just a grasping at straws for a psychological boost in order to declare oneself 'king of the castle' and everyone else a 'dirty rascal'. ;)

 

[cleanfreak]

Perhaps one of the most favorite verses of the modern version propionate is I John 5:7. I John 5:7 is one of the clearest verses on the Trinity in the entire Bible. Here we see clearly that Jesus and God are one. I John 5:7 reads as follows:
NIV- For there are three that testify:
NASV- And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
NWT- For there are three witness bearers,
KJV- For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (emphasis mine)
Here you can see that the NIV and the NASV are again in agreement with the NWT. They each omit the wonderful phrase “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one†which plainly speaks of Jesus’ Deity. Again we can see that the NIV and NASV have sided with the NWT in denying the Deity of Christ. Since there is so much controversy regarding I John 5:7 I will discuss this verse in greater detail in another essay.

This is because this portion of the verse was not in the original manuscripts. It has nothing to do with omitting the 'deity' of Christ, it is just a matter of fact.

I will wait anxiously for your detailed essay on this verse.

 

[Guap]

What is God's preserved word - certainly not an english VERSION!
It is the original languages. Hebrew, Aramiac, Greek.
If you follow your arguments, then God has LOTS of preserved words - in each different language.

 

[AKJVReader]

Question: Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?

Answer: 1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause. It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:

1. The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.
2. The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.
3. 1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts.

So why then is 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible, but not in many of the existing Greek manuscripts? To understand the answer, we must look at the history of what happened shortly after the Bible was written.

The Greek and Roman Institutions

During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal.
The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught. But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles.

Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.

Read more here:
Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?

 

[farouk]

Actually, the King James IS under copyright (though not in the United States). It comes under Crown copyright in the United Kingdom and some Commonwealth countries.

The distinction must be made between the Word of God, which He preserves, and a particular translation of it in a particular language. Otherwise there will be all sorts of circular reasoning.

 

[Free]

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?
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.]
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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?
8. 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.]
9. 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.
10. 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!

Reason for posting your sources:

1. It is illegal to take credit for someone else's work.

 

[farouk]

On the authority of the Word of God we can proclaim the Lord Jesus as the one Mediator between God and men (1 Timothy 2.5).

But to add to this truth and to say that also it must only be through one translation in one language, would be to become cultist. Effectively this can become faith in Christ, PLUS something else.