The word of God is not a secret code that needs unlocked.

So....
"The whole world is lying and my pet ordinance is true"

That's not going to work here.

Actually, I am a Pure Cambridge KJV (circa 1900) edition believer. The Pure Cambridge KJV was the first major KJV edition to encounter a printing technology that was not prone to error like the Blayney KJV edition of 1769. Granted, that said, from the Pure Cambridge, I believe that there were 6 major previous KJV editions used by the church that stem back through time that needed to be purified. While I am not claiming it as 100% fact, I believe there is a possibility that the printing errors or differences between the major KJV editions were communicating advanced revelation. This is consistent with what happened in the book of Jeremiah (if you are familiar with the story).

I am not arguing that it was popular soon as they published it in 1611. I believe it started to rise in popularity in 1640s, and it did not become popular until the 1660s in the UK. This is documented by historians, and or those who studied the history of the KJV (As I have already pointed out). But you did not seem to care about those article links I gave you. You just brushed them aside because it does not fit your own false narrative that you have built up in your own mind, my friend.

You must have come from an alternate dimension where history is radically different. The American Civil War took place between April 12, 1861 – May 26, 1865. The RV (Revised Version) by Westcott and Hort was not published until 1881. The RSV (Revised Standard Version) did not come out until 1952. Bruce Metzger was one of the key scholars who worked on the RSV (Revised Standard Version). Bruce Metzger presented a copy of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) to Pope John XXIII in 1960. So your information does not match up with what we know about the universe (or dimension of space time) we currently live in.

I would be embarrassed to say what you did because it is such a ridiculous claim.

As I said before. You are denying facts that even your own side would agree with me on. I know, I have been in these kinds of discussions before. You are living in alternative reality in your own mind involving the facts.

The KJV-only belief has been documented as early as the mid to late 1600s by various statements of faiths by churches.

The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed" In 1678. It says, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day." They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life."

The Orthodox Creed of 1678, published by the General Baptists of England, was most likely referring to the King James Version (KJV) when it mentioned the Scriptures "as they are now translated into our English mother tongue."

Why?

Well, by 1678, the KJV had firmly established itself as the dominant English translation, especially within Protestant churches. The Geneva Bible, though still used by some in earlier decades, had significantly declined in use after the rise of the KJV, which was increasingly becoming the standard for both public worship and private study.

The phrase "as they are now translated into our English mother tongue" suggests that the creed was referring to the most recent and authoritative translation widely accepted by the Protestant churches at that time, which would have been the KJV. Furthermore, the creed's statement that there had "never been any doubt of their verity and authority" aligns with the broader acceptance of the KJV by the Protestant churches by the late 17th century, as the Geneva Bible's use had largely waned.

…..

Nope. Certain facts I brought up about Westcott and Hort are agreed upon by those who are in defense of the Critical Text and who hate KJV-onlyism. You are now just repeating yourself in the hope of affirming to yourself what you want to be true (even without confirming any of these facts for yourself).

We are not living in the 1980s anymore. You can research this thing called 'the Internet.' I know if you do, you will feel completely dumb. Don't take my word for it. Just start searching and let that sinking feeling set in. There is no KJV only bias happening here. I gave you sources already that are not tied to any KJV-onlyists. You are just diehard set against the facts, my friend.

....

Using what Wescott and Hort provided for us.... Gives the Christian a much better understanding of what The Scripture (over all)
has to say and teaches, than the Shakespearean gobbly gook can ever convey.

Its an evil game. Its designed to keep us away from gaining true understanding.

In Christ ..................

I believe there is a lot of information on Wikipedia that is accurate when it comes to basic information that no "agenda distorters' are looking to change. Granted, you have to double-check those sources because some of them may not always be true. I was able to change a Wikipedia article without having to log in or anything. But if you are into Wikipedia, look at the ESV Bible there. It will tell you where the ESV is derived from. According to Wikipedia, the ESV comes from the RSV (Revised Standard Version) 1971 2nd edition. The RSV was first published in 1952. The RSV comes from the ASV (American Standard Version) first published in 1901 (Complete Bible). The ASV was based upon the RV (Revised Version) of 1881 by Westcott and Hort. The textual basis of the RV was the 1881 Greek New Testament text. The reason why this Greek text was made by Westcott and Hort was because they were trying to harmonize both the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts to their own liking.

So the ESV (English Standard Version) is in direct line with Westcott and Hort's Revised Version (RV).
When I first saw the ESV at a Christian bookstore for the first time, I felt a darkness coming from it. This was long before I was heavily into the Bible issue like I am today.

Anyway, most of all your Modern English Translations today follow the Nestle and Aland 28th edition here in the United States.
This text is heavily based on the Westcott and Hort text. This fact is confirmed even by a Modern Critical Text scholar. I have the quote if you are interested.

...

Well - the whole world is lying - because, it is being run by Satan - why have you not figured that out yet????? Wake up!

There are far more lies in the world than there is truth - discernment is required to separate what is false from the truth.

Start with the Bible - with God's help - and, eventually, you will be able to see what is true and what is false in the world.

I am not entirely opposed to the use of Modern English Translations, but only under the condition that one acknowledges the KJV as the perfect, inerrant Word of God. As long as these translations are not used to alter or challenge the message of the KJV in English, they can sometimes serve as useful tools—much like a dictionary—to help clarify the language of the 1600s. However, I feel it necessary to caution my fellow believers about the inherent dangers posed by Modern Bibles and Modern Scholarship. This movement, which began with Westcott and Hort in 1881, has been known to promote false doctrines and questionable translation theories.

Make no mistake: while Modern Bibles may have their uses, they also pose significant dangers. I certainly don't align myself with Westcott and Hort. Westcott engaged in praying to saints late at night within a church, which raises serious concerns. Both he and Hort allowed George Vance Smith, a known Unitarian, to serve on their translation committee. Smith openly celebrated changes to doctrinal texts that favored Unitarian views, as he outlined in his book Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament, which is freely accessible online. Furthermore, Westcott himself admitted that the reading of "only begotten God" could be interpreted in an Arian sense, further proving his heretical leanings.

The best video I watched recently on the heretics and the Critical Text is this one:


.......

Well said. This is why I have come up with 15 Biblical Reasons for a person to trust in a singular perfect Word of God for today. This is all a part of my larger PDF of 150 Reasons for the KJB. I have a rough listing of my reasons on a Google doc that I am sharing with a few of my fellow KJB brethren to get feedback on. But so far, I believe my list has finally been refined. The graphic or image-filled PDF is still a work in progress. However, I am hoping to fast-track my image-filled KJV PDF.

Anyway, I hope you are well in the Lord.

May God bless you.

....

Yes, studies have shown that Jesus often used simple language to communicate his teachings. Scholars note that his words were straightforward and relatable, making it easier for people of all backgrounds to understand. For example, he often used everyday images, like seeds or shepherds, to illustrate his points. This simplicity allowed him to connect with ordinary people, as his messages were clear and memorable. By avoiding complex language, he made his teachings accessible, ensuring that his ideas could be shared and remembered by everyone.

Blessings

Jesus also used parables that others did not understand. Jesus spoke of His resurrection before the cross, but His disciples did not understand what He was talking about. Jesus referred to His temple as His body to the Jews and did not explain this to them. Peter basically said of Paul’s writings that they are hard to understand, which some twist to their own destruction. Why else are we told to study God’s Word? Even the Bible says, "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." (Proverbs 25:2).

....

Hello world....

We do not see certain things in Modern Translations or Modern Scholarship in the Bible. For example, none of the apostles in NT Scripture gave us any footnotes on doubting certain words of God in the Hebrew text. The only concept of questioning or doubting God's Word is attached to a negative idea. For example, the serpent questions Eve about the reliability of God's Word. So this is a tactic of the devil. In addition, the Bible says we can have the knowledge of the certainty of the words of truth. But Modern Bibles teach different things not only between each other but between their own editions (Which are not changes due to fixing any printing errors). Different conflicting words in different Bibles and editions cause confusion and God is not the author of confusion. Paul says to the Corinthians that we are all to speak the same thing. This is only possible if there is only one Word of God that we can all agree upon. Also, the Modern Bible Movement will never have a settled text. It has been constantly shapeshifting and changing for many years now. Again, this concept or idea is not found in the Holy Scriptures.


....

Some verses would require a paragraph to explain how and why a Greek word was translated.

How many here really want to learn what the Greek and Hebrew declares from it being taught straight from the Scriptures, rather than having to restrict what was expressed because it needs to fit into a Translation?

You can talk about translations and argue over manuscripts all you wish.

Its those who discover what the Hebrew and Greek actually contain that have the mind of Christ.

And exactly which copies of the Hebrew and Greek are you suggesting?

The BHS and UBS v4 are the standards.

And I know plenty of Saved People who know nothing about Hebrew or Greek.

The Bible never mandates that we must learn Greek to understand God. Pentecost itself illustrates that neither Hebrew nor Greek were meant to be the sole languages through which humanity would understand Him for all time. Personally, I’d love to learn both Modern and Koine Greek someday and even live in Greece to gain expertise. However, I don’t believe God’s Word is inaccessible to me if I don’t know Greek. I firmly believe that God has preserved His Word for us today in English through the King James Bible. Knowing Greek, in my view, is simply a bonus—like icing on the cake.

My main motivation for learning Greek is to expose the fact that many within Modern Scholarship don’t always fully grasp what they’re talking about. Moreover, which Greek manuscripts are we even referring to? Not all Greek manuscripts say the same thing and even the printed editions of the Greek New Testament differ. So, how could one claim certainty without an in-depth knowledge of Greek?

That said, I mention this because one of the world’s leading Greek grammarians, Georgios Babiniotis, who has authored several Greek dictionaries and is a native Greek speaker, supports the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 based on preserving proper grammar. He’s not a KJV-only advocate; he’s simply an expert in Greek. Babiniotis argues that without the Comma Johanneum, there are two grammatical errors in the text. His position is supported by other Greek grammarians throughout history, yet most Modern Bible Scholars can’t even order a pizza in Greek, let alone argue these points convincingly.





....

The BHS (for the Old Testament) was created by a German rationalist (Rudolf Kittel) who was not a Christian. He did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. His son (Gerhard Kittel) created a 10-volume standard reference work used in the N.T. Greek word studies entitled "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.” This dictionary is found in many Pastor's libraries. Why is this a problem? Well, Gerhard joined the Nazi party and he was tried for war crimes.

As for the UBS v4: Well, actually it is the UBS v5 now. The UBS v5 is what is used more commonly outside of the United States.
The Nestle and Aland 28th edition is used for Modern English Bibles here in the States.

…..

Jesus used parables to fulfill prophecy, it is true some of the disciples did not understand at some point but note that after Jesus resurrection when the spirit was sent to all who believed, they understood, same today, people who received the Holy Spirit that jesus said he would send ""the comforter" understand, Peter was quite correct in saying that Paul's texts, far more complex in structure and vocabulary was difficult to understand for the common man. Still today we see very different interpretations to most of Paul's verses and concepts, definitely not easy to understand. so many denominations for so many different interpretations. For My part I rely fully on the words of Jesus and seldom quote Paul for clarity.

The Bible is a big book, and these languages would take a long time to truly know correctly. To truly know Greek on the level like a Georgios Babiniotis would take longer than you think. But the point you missed is that we are not talking about just readability of the words here, but we are talking about which Greek text should you follow. If you like the idea of a shape shifter text, then Modern Scholarship is your path. If you believe the Bible in that it strongly implies there is only one Word of God for us today, then the King James Bible is the most logical fit. Greek is only a bonus and not a must to understand God's Word. Again, what do you think happened at Pentecost? Did they speak in Hebrew and Greek only?

....

Yes! and some Aramaic texts (https://www.thearamaicscriptures.com/) also are useful but above all ,one must rely on the Holy spirit that explains things to us if we have an open heart.

Blessings.