1. Eunice Carpenter

    You do not have to go back further than the KJV majority line of manuscripts. First, scripture tells us a number of things which point to the inspired Words of God. When scripture says, that the Word has been preserved pure to each generation, it therefore cannot have errors and cannot be ever changing in word meaning and verses omitted. Look up rules of contracts. Think about how deception works. Look at logical reasoning which says what is different is not the same. Scripture says, no lie is of the truth. Can a translation have lies and still be God’s Word? Adding in man’s traditions and philosophy makes a translation null and void. Do a comparison of scriptures (Serious omissions by Keith Piper may be helpful.) and see if all Bibles say the same thing. The KJV majority line was being used for 400 years while the minority line of manuscripts were lost for 600 or more years. Does that sound like God’s Word which says that Man should live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God? Also look at some of the translators. From those that did not believe that Jesus is God to those that believe the Bible to be only partially inspired, to those that were homosexuals, etc. in which scripture says if someone is an unbeliever they walk in darkness and cannot understand spiritual things. Also look at the method of translation. Something called Textual Criticism is used by the modern version translators but is not a translation method but is interpretation only.

  2. Terry Hoekstra

    I began studying this subject many years ago and came to the conclusion that I can comfortably put this in God’s hands. I believe in the reality that God can give me the gift of discernment and I can rest in that. Having said that I know that there is a lot of chicanery by the devil and his hordes going on. I am a pastor’s wife and as such I must be careful what I endorse. I will never buy a Bible sold by Zondervan because of their Bible that is gender neutral. They are not a Christian organization. Having said that, I believe in comparisons. I like the NASB most but have understood that even that is being continually revised. I don’t see the need for revisions so what I do is compare the KJV and the NASB when I use either. I believe we need to be so very careful in these “last days” because the devil is out to devour as many of us as he can in any way he can.

  3. Byron Kelley

    I stick with the KJV. It’s reliable and was not translated from the corrupt manuscripts that all modern bibles were translated from.

  4. Ralph

    One point I would like to stress clarifying my other comments on this blog, as you study into the manuscript Bible preservation issue, It will save you a lot of heartache if you first of all understand verbal plenary, inspiration and preservation. Wikipedia and the Dean Burgon Society both do a great job of defining. God bless you all as you seek the truth.

  5. Mary Selander

    Excellent article. I’m thankful for my father, who did an exhaustive study of the King James and modern versions. He taught us all about Westcott and Hort and the two streams of manuscripts. ALL modern versions come from the corrupt stream of manuscripts (Alexandrian and Siniaticus texts) and ONLY the King James comes from the Masoretic Text. Even the NKJV differs from the KJV and agrees with modern versions, so it is NOT really a KJV modern day revision. Interestingly, for a time he worked as a custodian in a Catholic school. One day while cleaning a classroom, he saw on the board two lists of Bibles that were being compared. On one side was a list of acceptable versions, and EVERY MODERN VERSION was on this list. On the other side was supposed to be a list of corrupted versions. ONLY the KJV was listed as corrupted and not permitted to be read! I think that only spoke volumes.

  6. Heather

    Thank you for what you are doing and God bless you! To sola scriptura…I am reading the link you posted and I am understanding like never before what you have discovered and written. Thank you and God Bless you and your family as you serve Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

  7. Ralph

    Pastor Bruce, please take a long hard look at the textual criticism issue. Wescott &Hort, Nestle/Åland and the Roman Catholic/ Jesuit influences relating to the modern bibles, also follow the copyright money trail, then the deception starts to make sense..

  8. T. I. Miller

    The phrase, older more reliable text, is an assertion at best and possibly a contrivance at worst. This fervor to eliminate scriptures began in the 1800’s with the discovery of a tiny few long lost manuscripts alleged to be older. Even so does that then make them more reliable?Wescott/Hort and Nestle/Marshall have made a lot of assumptions. They seem to be the main culprits that caused these deletions to be accepted. Time to examine their assumptions as well their Catholic predilections.

  9. Pastor Bruce K. Oyen

    I compared all the KJV verses in this article by the semi-anonymous author, Mr. K., with the New KJV. There’s very little difference between the two translations regarding these verses. So, unless one is strictly KJV-only, and unless one believes all differences from the KJV must be rejected, we can use the New KJV as a point of comparison on these verses. This means, if we reject the ESV and NIV because they differ with the KJV on these verses, we can reject those translations because they also differ from the New KJV. Next, I will compare Mr. K’s list of KJV verses with the Modern English Version, which is a very recent revision of the KJV. Blessings! Pastor Bruce K. Oyen

  10. Scot H

    The KJV is the best English translation period. It is based on the correct manuscripts, not the corrupted Alexandrian ones. Look up David W. Daniels; he has made numerous videos and published many books on this subject.

  11. Ralph

    Excellent article! I have studied this deeply for many years and it is my belief this is why churches and denominations are being destroyed. We lived it first hand in our EFCA Church in Malmo Minnesota.

  12. T. I. Miller

    I want to thank Art K. for this work of love for the truth. I do question comparing 1 English translation with another English translation, be it KJV or something else. It went to my E-Sword study program where I can scan 13 translations in short order. My RSV eliminates some of the same portions as does the ESV. My Nestle/Marshall Interlinear in the footnotes I read over and over ” removed by Nestle “. To answer these thorny question we need to go back to the ancient manuscripts not just the KJV. How does the Greek compare to the Latin and Aramaic? Why did some Greek translation scholars leave everything in and other scholars have no problem eliminating them. Is it because of bias or not? What have you stirred up Art?

  13. Sola Scriptura

    What is so deceptive about the ESV, is that on its website it claims to build on the scholarship of the KJV, yet it used a completely different set of Greek manuscripts! The translators use the so-called critical Greek Text , which didn’t even exist until 1881. That text uses Greek manuscripts which clearly wax catholic and are of spurious authenticity. The history of the two different streams of Greek manuscripts can be fond at the link below. I strongly believe that any Bible literate Christian should have some measure of understanding of this critical issue: http://followingjesuschrist3.com/2015/10/24/the-bible-version-controversy-a-brief-history/

  14. Ron DeMitchell

    I was wondering which translation is the best one to have. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are faithful translations, but then there are inaccurate paraphrases.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available