If Lord Jesus walked the earth today, in an English speaking, do you seriously believe that He would speak Elizabethan English?
No, I do not believe Jesus is currently speaking 1600s English in Heaven. Neither do I believe He spoke English during His earthly ministry. However, I do believe God providentially preserved His words for English-speaking people in the King James Bible.
In other words, the written Word is obviously different from the Living Word.
The apostle Paul said that He adapted his approach to people depending on whether they were Jew or gentile. (1 Corinthians 9:22) Oh, and it was before the KJV was released.
I think you may be reading more into 1 Corinthians 9:22 than the passage actually says.
Paul's point is that he adapted his approach to different people in order to reach them with the gospel. The passage is not discussing Bible translation philosophy, nor does it teach that every word spoken by Jesus or Paul was always expressed in the most current, simple, or immediately understandable language possible.
In fact, there are several examples that show otherwise.
Jesus frequently spoke in parables, and many people did not understand Him (Matthew 13:10-13). The disciples themselves often misunderstood His sayings, including His statements about the leaven of the Pharisees, His death and resurrection, and the temple being raised in three days.
On the cross, Jesus spoke, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" Yet some of the people standing there misunderstood Him and thought He was calling for Elias (Matthew 27:46-47). If your argument is that Jesus would always speak in the way most immediately understood by every listener, that example seems difficult to explain.
Likewise, Peter said that Paul wrote "some things hard to be understood" (2 Peter 3:16). So even inspired apostolic teaching was not always instantly clear to everyone.
I was born again 54 years ago. I've never used the King James. I was born in the 20th century, not the 17th. I speak English, not Elizabethan. I don't know of too many more pointless pursuits than the promotion of the KJV as somehow the only version approved of by God.
It does not matter how long you were a believer when it comes to this topic. Unless you looked at both Bible lines (the TR/KJV vs the Critical Text/Modern Bibles) with an open mind and in being fair with the facts or the truth, you are never going to understand any of the things that I say here.
There were heresies flying around long before modern versions were released.
Your not getting it. The heresies are found in your Modern Bibles.
Jehovah's Witnesses used the KJV. It did not prevent their false doctrines.
Adam heard directly from God and yet he disobeyed.
My point is that while God's true words can be disobeyed by man, one is most certainly going to either belief something false or disobey the Lord in some way if their Modern Bibles has such false corruptions leading them down path.
Are you aware that Modern Bibles tell you to marry your rapist?
Atheists love to bring this little fact up.
Yet, the KJV does not have this problem.
The 19th century gave us the Mormons, Christadelphians, Christian Scientism, Seventh Day Adventists and the Unitarians.
Right, and it was the rise of the 1881 Westcott and Hort text, as well.
But my point that you are not understanding in this thread is that Unitarians, Catholics working on behalf of the Vatican, liberals, rainbow people, and a Mormon all worked on your critical texts. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if a theology of a people is bad, then that bad theology can rub off on their work in translations or in its critical texts. One needs to be born again to even understand God's word. Do you think these heretics are qualified to even handle God's words?
The KJV did not prevent those cults arising. It's not modern translations that lead to error, it's people who twist God's word to make it say what they want it to say or deny the authority of God's word in the first place.
It goes beyond even the later corruptions that you are not even aware of. The two main manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) that your Critical Text uses is corrupt. For instance, both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus depict Jesus being pierced by a spear before His death on the cross (See Matthew 27:49-50), a reading that never appears in any English translation. In Hebrews 1:3, Vaticanus omits the crucial phrase “by himself,” erasing the only New Testament reference to Christ personally purging our sins. Next to this verse in Vaticanus is a marginal note that reads, ἀμαθέστατε καὶ κακέ, ἄφες τὸν παλαιόν, μὴ μεταποίει (“Fool and knave, can’t you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!”), revealing that even scribes recognized and objected to the textual corruption in progress. Moreover, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other in roughly three thousand places within the Gospels alone, which is hardly a mark of trustworthy or reliable witnesses.
....
