My usual. The KJV is written in Early Modern English. It is vastly different than 21st century English. Here are some technical reasons it is wrong to use the KJV:
1. Uses 2nd person singular, which has not been used for hundreds of years in English speaking countries, with the exception of perhaps Quakers. We have not been taught how the words are written nor their morphology. It is a major stumbling block.
2. So many archaic and obsolete words. True, you can look them up, but those words are simply not in use. Or worse, they are in use, and the meaning has changed.
The Textual Critic crowd prefers even more difficult languages that nobody can even read (i.e., Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).
The problem is that they pretend to know these languages by pointing to some dictionary written by the Modern Bible Movement.
Also, the personal pronouns does help to distinguish between whether a single person is speaking vs. Two or more people. The Modern Bibles generally hide this truth so they are clearly inferior in this case. In John chapter 3, we see Jesus distinguish between Nicodemus (Thou, verse 10) vs. everyone (Ye must be born again. - verse 7). The word ”Ye” means “You-all.” Thou is singular referring to one person. So a person could falsely think that verse 7 is only referring to Nicodemus in being born again because it uses only the word ”you” in Modern Bibles.
You said:
A further thing concerns the manuscripts involved in translating to English. KJV uses very late Greek manuscripts that were full of errors, esp added verses that are not found in earlier versions. KJV advocates are always stating that many verses have been left out of modern versions. But if you compare earlier texts from severe different places, such as the Syriac, Vulgate etc, you will find less verses in all of them.
Westcott and Hort actually proposed the Lucian Recension Theory with no shred of evidence.
They also were supposed to do an update of the King James Bible but they snuck in two different texts that they harmonized into one.
These texts had corrections on them and they disagreed with each other in thousands of places.
Westcott and Hort had Unitarians on their Revised Version team of translators. No wonder because you can see verses that attack the deity of Christ and the Trinity, etcetera. Hort called the Evangelical as perverted and they were heavily into Catholic practices. If you look at their commentaries, they deny the deity of Christ, the blood atonement, the substitutionary atonement. The Westcott and Hort 1881 NT Greek text was used for the current Nestle and Aland. Mr. Epp (a Modern Textual Critic) says that the Westcott and Hort 1881 text is barely any different than the Nestle and Aland 28th edition. The Nestle and Aland says in the 27th edition that it was supervised by the Vatican. I posted a screen capture of this a few pages back. But no doctrine is changed right? Wrong. If you were to Google, “Keith Piper NIV” and go to pages 21-22 on that PDF, you will see 14 changes that favor the Catholic Church. So we have both Catholics and Unitarians associated with these Modern Bibles and we can see doctrines changed to favor these beliefs. I mean what kind of sick person moves a few words in 1 John 5:8 to 1 John 5:7 to hide the fact from the new reader that the one and only verse on the Trinity is missing? The same is true with NKJV deception. Fartad basically implied on the John Ankerberg show that his translation does not follow the critical text. Either he was ignorant or he was involved in willful deception because the NKJV clearly has readings that follow the other Alexandrian Modern Bibles and not always the Textus Receptus.
You said:
The end result is manuscripts that were not correctly copied with added words. And every error I mentioned can be found in Byzantine manuscripts. Plus, Byzantine manuscripts just popped out of thin air in the 8th century Byzantine Empire days. They have no lineage or pedigree back to the earliest manuscripts.
This is not true. There are Latin manuscripts that support the KJB readings. Latin was one of the three languages used on the sign above the cross. In addition, the 17 omitted verses in Modern Bibles can be confirmed by early church fathers, as well.
You said:
Further, there are several epistles translated by a Catholic priest - Erasmus. In order to get church approval and be left verses that could not be found in any manuscripts, ever the later ones. The Johannine Comma was one of these. Erasmus was in a hurry. He needed his book/Bible printed immediately, or he would lose a lot of money. So rather than translate. Galatians, from Greek, he translated it from Latin, using Jerome's 4th century very poor Greek to Latin translation. That never changed.
The KJB translators did not just use solely Erasmus but they used other manuscripts they had available at that time. The readings in the KJB line also with the Syriac Peschitta, and the Latin Italic Bible. Unfortunately many of these manuscripts the KJB translators had would have have been burned up in the London fire of 1666.
The Vaticanus manuscript containing 1 John 5:7 demonstrates that a significant textual variant was known for 1 John 5:7 in the 4th century. In 1995 Philip B. Payne discovered "umlauts" (double dots) in the margins of various places in Codex Vaticanus. He and many scholars agree that these umlauts indicate lines where a textual variant was known to the scribe. You can read his work, The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus here:
Vaticanus Text Critical Symbols
Interestingly, an umlaut appears next to the phrase "τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες" in Vaticanus. Payne briefly discusses and seemingly dismisses the significance of the umlaut in 1 John 5:7 (p. 112, footnote 34), but without a doubt, the umlaut is there. The graphic displayed is a scanned image of 1 John 5:6-8 in Vaticanus and the red arrow points to the double dots.
The screen capture of the transcription of the picture below is from the official digitized Nestle-Aland on the University of Munster Institute website.
There is only one known variant in 1 John 5:7 and that is the Johannine Comma which is now contained in the Textus Receptus. This means the Comma existed before the Codex Vaticanus was written.
Source:
https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Editorial/Umlauts
Also, Textual Critics ignore the witnesses of the early church fathers.
Modern Scholars actually have nothing much to say on Fulgentius.
But this video goes into a deep explanation of his official debate involving the Comma.
So of course they are hiding things like this from you.
They also ignore that a top Greek grammarian (who is not KJB Only) who lives in Greece and his native tongue is Greek says there is a grammar error in the text if 1 John 5:7 is not there. See this video here:
Keep in mind that many of the Textual Critical scholars do not even know how to order a pizza in Greek.
I think there jobs are at stake if they admit they are wrong.
Plus, I can show you in English in context of why 1 John 5:7 is supposed to be in the text.
1 John 5:7 tells us the witness of God in Heaven, which is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.
1 John 5:8 gives us the witness of man in that man is made up of water, blood, and spirit. As we can note, both blood and water poured out of Jesus’ side at the cross when the spear pierced Him.
1 John 5:9 says the witness of God is greater. So without the witness of God in 1 John 5:7, it does not contextually make any sense.
In addition, for hundreds of years, Christians had this verse and they obviously used it as God’s Word in defense against those who denied the Trinity. So these Christians were deceived for hundreds of years and helping others with 1 John 5:7 means nothing? Okay.
Furthermore, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus text type is Alexandrian. So if the manuscripts can be traced to Alexandria Egypt, that is not good. If you were to Google the origins of Arianism, you would see that a large fountainhead of that movement was from Arius who resided in the Alexandria Egypt area. Coincidence? If you believe in such things.
I mean, if I washed up on a deserted island, and I knew nothing of Christianity, and all I had was Modern Bible, the chances of my knowing about the Trinity would be harder to figure out unless I had a King James Bible instead. All DIRECT references of the Trinity are removed in Modern Bibles. Not only is 1 John 5:7 removed, but the word “Godhead“ which appears three times in the KJB (Meaning Trinity) is changed to “divinity.“ There are also Latin witnesses (manuscripts) in the earlier centuries that Modern Scholars ignore, as well. But Latin was one of the three languages that was written on the sign that was above Jesus.
To make matters worse for the Textual Critic, they actually try and deceive us by moving the part of 1 John 5:8 that says the words, “For there are three that testify:” to replace the empty space in 1 John 5:7 to fool the new reader into thinking there is no missing verse there that is important. To me this should raise alarm bells for you. But I am sure it will not for many in the Textual Critic camp. They will just say, “Nothing to see here.” “Move on.” If this was some minor fact in the Bible that does not change doctrine, I could see, but this is a major doctrine of who God is.
[Continued in my next post to you]:
