Is KJV the only Bible version Christians should use?

I think the title says it all:

Is the King James Version of the Bible the only version that Christians should be reading and preaching from today? Is it an inspired version, and the only true Bible left?

Or can Christians safely use other Bible translations and still be confident that they are reading the Word of God?

Discuss!

I use the King James Version, and I think that it is probably the best version out there. However, its language is a little outdated, and even I sometimes need help finding out what some of its words mean. I do not think that the KJV is the only true Bible. If you want to be that strict, then look at the errors that the KJV has and you can't call even it a "true Bible". I often refer to many other versions for different ways of saying things.

Did you know that the "meat offering" in Leviticus (KJV) was the only offering that did not consist of meat? It consisted of meal!

Here's the thing about the KJV. It's a great translation (including the one that I use for memorization), but it isn't perfect. For some brief history, one of the first English Bibles was the Geneva Bible which John Calvin and some other translators worked on in Geneva, Switzerland. King James later told translators to translate a Bible and they largely copied from the Geneva Bible, with some minor changes.

The only thing that we can have in this world to a "perfect" Bible is the original Greek/Hebrew text of the Bible. Given that that is not very preferable for English speakers, translations are acceptable. To say that the King James version and the King James version ONLY is the true version is rather prideful, in my opinion. Sure, the King James might be the best version. But that doesn't mean all the other versions are awful.

Besides that, there is a sense in which the KJV is getting a bit old for many modern readers. I still like it and use it, but in like, a couple hundred years, I think there would be good reason if few people used the KJV. This is why we don't use Greek/Hebrew Bibles–they're too hard to understand. That's what the Reformation (at least partly), and the Geneva Bible and through it the KJV was all about–translating the Bible into the common tongue.

I grew up on the KJV, but switched to NKJV in college for its more contemporary language.

The KJV is a great translation, and obviously God allowed it to be the predominant Bible during the two Great Awakenings and a good deal of the Puritan era. However, no one English translation can necessarily be heralded as "inspired" or as God's "true Word."

James White has written a fair and well-researched book, called "The KJV-Only Controversy." He, too, agrees that the KJV is a great translation; but that's not the controversy. The controversy comes when anyone says one translation is the ONLY one that not only man should read but also that God condones. Some even go so far as to say that God inspired the KJV translation above all others, and to read anything else is sin and not the true Bible.

I really think this kind of exclusivity greatly destroys one's witness to the unsaved; sharply divides fellowship among the brethren; and is totally unsupported by Scripture Itself.

As has already been said, only the original Hebrew & Greek manuscripts were inspired, which we no longer have; however, research has shown that most of our major translations today are about as accurate as you can get to those originals. The ESV is probably the best rendering we have today.

I fully respect those who embrace the KJV as their version, but I am saddened when that loyalty turns to the darker side of legalistically claiming it to be the ONLY version God approves. There's just no Biblical support for that stance, and it gives God no glory in speaking on His behalf.

I use King James and really like it. I do think some of the language is a bit "outdated", but i do like KJV. The new KJV has more "updated" language, but I prefer using the original.

How many of you use the NIV?

I agree. The KJV is not the only "true Bible" in the world. It certainly has it's good points - the language is beautiful, especially in certain passages - but it can be very confusing today. For instance, "meat" was the general word for "food" in the seventeenth century, and "peculiar" meant "special" not "weird."

Besides, if no other translations are acceptable, where is the place for Bibles in Quichua or Nabak, or even French or Spanish? There are many people who do not understand English, let alone Early Modern English. If we are going to open the door to anything besides Ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek, it doesn't make sense to insist on just one translation, and at that one that isn't even in the language of the people anymore.

I think everybody has done a great job answering ChiefOfSinners question! This forum is really great!

I have been memorizing in and reading NIV basically my entire life. However, we pray Scripture aloud in devotions with my mom and I think some of the verses are ESV.

I agree - the English Superior Version is very good. However, the ESV has one major problem, (in my opinion) that being the translation of the Hebrew word whose consonants are YHWH, the tetragrammaton. This, of course, is the personal name for God. Here is part of Exodus 3:15: "This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations." Why, then, is YHWH rendered 'the LORD', or when the tetragrammaton is coupled with the Hebrew 'Adonai', it is rendered 'the Lord GOD'? Why not Yahweh, or even Jehovah? God's name is to be remembered, and yet it is not even in our bibles!
As for deity pronouns, which are not capitalized in the ESV, the Hebrew and Greek don't have them, so why should English translations?

Two links, both are from AV1611.org. I understand that some of the ideas here will be further than most people will take them. However, they do provide some excellent points, that are good to keep in mind. We can be positive that some translations are not the word of God. Some Bible translations are made to please man, instead of God.

1. http://www.av1611.org/kjv/counterfeit.html
2. http://www.av1611.org/tracts.html#BibleVersions

@InSoloChristo: the Hebrew and Greek also don't use italicized words, yet our English translations use them to bring better clarity in forming the full thought. Based on these alone, I argue that capitalizing deity is done for the same reason.

I'll pick some Psalms for you to read from your ESV, and I will ask you throughout your reading to tell me which pronoun in the Psalm is addressing God or the psalmist, and let's see how you do. Capitalizing assists the reader in fully understanding the passage, just as italicized words do the same in nearly all English translations.

I think the reason why "LORD" is used in the place of "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" in most translations is primarily because some believers consider "Yahweh" to be such a sacred name for God that they want to avoid speaking it. Thus, reading a translation that says "Yahweh" all the time aloud would be a stumbling block. I honestly don't know anything about the significance of the name "Jehovah", so I can't speak on that. Personally, I don't think there's any harm in rendering YHWH "LORD", especially since most Christians know it was originally Yahweh - at least, I hope. Basically what I'm saying is that some Christians don't want to speak the word "Yahweh" (and may even consider it wrong or inappropriate), so rendering it LORD is just being sensitive to them. I haven't thought about this issue very much, though, so I may be wrong. I have no intention of speaking dogmatically.

Back to the subject at hand- In my opinion, while the KJV has many things nice about it (I actually love its language - it sounds poetic and so distinctive, and I think this distinctiveness helps to view the Bible as "set apart" and helps you to cling to its words), the idea that it's uniquely inspired and every other translation is false is simply wrong and has no basis in the Scriptures or even reason. God inspired the original texts - our responsibility in translating is to get as close to these texts as we possibly can to represent God's Word as accurately as possible. Also, the KJV was based on manuscripts available at the time, meaning less than we have now, so (in my opinion) it should not even be considered the best of all translations. I mean no offense to KJV users. Using it and memorizing from is NOT bad! But I think there are a few verses which are translated poorly (it is my understanding that the second half of Proverbs 19:18 in the KJV seems to say the opposite of what is should say according to the Hebrew). We should recognize the KJV as a good, but flawed human translation and not as "the only real Bible".

I don't think that KJV is the only accurate version - NKJV is also a good version. Both those and all the others have misinterpretations in them. Consider Proverbs 26:10. Both the King James versions and thr others have different translations of it. By studying the original Hebrew I have come to the conclusion that NIV is more accurate on it, yet is twisted in itself. Like, where comes the "archer" or "random"? Interestingly enough, the Hebrew language contains no swear words (good).

But the ESV doesn't have italics. That's one other thing I like about it.
One other thing about deity pronouns - what if the translators who capitalized the pronouns were wrong? I understand this would be difficult to do, but it could happen.
You can ask me about some Psalms, but please start a new topic about it if you do. (In the chat section of the forum.)

But if they don't have italics, it means they don't mark the added words as added. For studying the original Hebrew and Greek, there are words added that are not italicized.

I (really) prefer KJV, but I don't think it's the only version Christians should use. I do tend to think of churches changing to use other versions (esp. NLT, NASB, etc.) as slightly conforming to the world/trying to make the church look more like and therefore more attractive to the world. But I definitely don't believe it's wrong to use other versions.

I don't think KJV is the only true Bible. I personally use it, but I remember how hard it was to read and understand when I first started. I haven't really looked into the other translations. The funny thing is, after I got used to KJV, I have a hard time understanding the Bible in a more modern language. :) My parents bought this Bible a while ago, and I think it's pretty cool. A man named Ray Comfort took the KJV Bible, changed all the ye's, hath's thee's and so on, to modern language. It's called the Evidence Bible, and it's in "Comfort-able KJV." :) It makes it a lot easier to read if you're not used to KJV.

I may be wrong, but I always thought the italicized words were words that weren't in the original text, but were added to make the text more understandable in English. Is that right?

Yes, indeed! The italicized words are not in the original text, but added to the English translation to provide better clarity.

My argument to InSoloChristo, who says that deity is not capitalized in the original Hebrew and Greek yet has not voiced any problems with italicized words, even though they too are not in the original Hebrew and Greek either, seems to be contradicting himself.

Either throw out the italicized words with the capitalizations, or accept them both. You can't use the Hebrew/Greek argument to support no capitalization of deity while embracing italicized words.

That's all.

The original KJV actually had the Apocratha in it, which is not part of the canon of Scripture, and the translators even said that it wasn't the only Bible. These two facts alone tell me that it's not the only true Bible, although I do like the neat language of some of the verses. I personally use NKJV, but other versions are great, too - especially ESV and NASB.

I have nothing against deity pronouns, except that the translators might have gotten them wrong. Something to back this up is that there is a passage in Revelation describing a character, and some Christians believe it means an antichrist, others thing it describes Christ.
I have nothing against italics, except I think they look weird.
If I did have a problem with italics, I would logically argue that all of our New Testament not have spaces, punctuation, and that it be in all caps. (For instance, I would say that John 1:1 should be written: INTHEBEGINNINGWASTHEWORDANDTHEWORDWASWITHGODANDTHWORDWASGOD That, of course, is ridiculous.)
As for the tetragrammaton, we should be extremely careful when we use it, because vain use of it breaks the 3rd commandment. But if people still feel uncomfortable using it, they can do what the Jews did. When reading the tetragrammaton, Jews replaced it with the word Adonai, another word that means God or Lord.

Hey, @ISC, watch it with all those big words! I'll tell your dad if you don't stop!

As for the tetragrammarizaton, I think I'll trust that the NKJV translators knew a thing or too about proper translation techniques, and I lean on their knowledge and wisdom for capitalizing the correct pronouns.

Just something for you all to consider…

The KJV has at least one unarguable benefit over all of the modern English translations. Those "archaic" words such as thee, thou, art, wast, wouldst, etc. have more meaning than you might expect. All the words that I just mentioned are singular, while others, such as ye, are plural. The original Greek/Hebrew texts contained these distinctions between singular and plural, and the KJV kept this distinction in the translation. This was not the way common people spoke back then, it was done to more accurately translate. Even the ASV, published in 1901, still contained this "archaic" language.

This is not only important because it is a more accurate translation of the original writtings, but also because some meanings can be changed. Quoting from David W. Daniels,
"In almost every language but Modern English, people knew whether the speaker was addressing one person or many. In Classical English, this is preserved. If the speaker is talking to one person, he uses "thee" or "thou". If he is talking to many people, he says "you" or "your."
"The King James Bible preserves this distinction. When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, He said, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again" (John 3:7). What He said in effect was, "Marvel not that I said unto thee (Nicodemus), ye (all of you people) must be born again." Jesus did not tell this only to Nicodemus. He spoke to all people of all times, from those who stood around that night, even to us today: Ye must be born again!"

If you were reading that passage in a modern translation, you would totally miss all that. Sure, you can always go look up the Greek/Hebrew and see whether it is plural or singular, but having it all there as I read the KJV Bible gives me a better understanding as well as saving me a lot of time looking things up. Just because we don't talk like that today is no excuse to omit it from the Bible. We don't say that Shakesphere's writtings need to be changed because they are too hard to understand. Instead, we learn the meanings of the words we don't understand. If you try to lower things to the standard of all people, they will continually fall short while more and more meaning and distinction is lost. Where should we draw the line?

Well said, Ranch4Christ! By the way, nice Gravatar. :)

My favorite verses in the NIV are Acts 8:37, Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, and Romans 16:24. Look them up in the NIV and you will see why.

That is weird the Niv leaves those out. Those are some of the same verses the Jehovahs Witneses Bible leaves out. I use Kjv, and it has every verse. Nice job Ranch4christ!

Hey wait!! Those aren't in my Bible!!

Is that the response you were looking for? =P

I'm glad those verses are in in my Bible…

Maybe they're not in there for a good reason…like maybe the same reason the Apocrypha were taken out of the original KJV…?

Maybe the same reason they're also omitted in the Jehovah's Witness Bible…

Do you have an explanation for why some of those verses aren't found in the commentaries of the earliest church fathers, who commented on every verse of the NT?

Almost the entire NT can be reconstructed from the writings of the church fathers–all except those few verses you mentioned, which were likely added later.

Can I have a specific instance and source please?

Sure. I'll do my best to find one. Just give me a while.

EDIT: Well, all I can find is oodles of sites saying that the entire NT can be reconstructed except for 11 verses, but not one site that lists the verses. Sorry.

But there is this Wikipedia page I found that gives some explanations for some of the missing passages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bible_verses_not_included_in_modern_translations

Are you all saying that we do not have God's inspired Word in our hands today, because we don't have the actual original manuscripts?

I hate to jump in on a topic I don't know a whole lot about, but I am sure that the NIV translators did not leave those verses out simply because they did not want them! The only time they ever take a verse out (but I'd like to mention they always have them in the footnotes, so they really are there) is if it is questionable that the verse was ever in the original manuscripts in the first place! Most Bible translators (leaving out "translations" like The Message and such) are very careful in their translations and work with the utmost attention to what they are doing, in order to get from the text what it obviously means. Please give me proof that the NIV translators were careless in their translation!

(leaving out "translations" like The Message and such)

The Message is technically referred to as a "paraphrase" which is quite appropriate. So yes, it would probably be wise to leave it out of this discussion of translations.

Anyways. Carry on. :)

What do you think of the new gender-neutral NIV?

What do I think of the gender-neutral NIV? Not good. Not good at all. They are truly changing what the text says to fit with today's society. The 1984 NIV (the one I am defending) only changes according to language differences. Old English is no longer used today, so a new translation helps us understand what the text is saying in an easier light. But when you change the MEANING of the text to fit with what people will like, then you are doing wrong.

P.S. Sorry I can't continue with this discussion much longer… I've got to go soon.

Are you all saying that we do not have God's inspired Word in our hands today, because we don't have the actual original manuscripts?

Yes, that's what we're saying. We do not have an absolutely perfect, inspired version of God's Word in our present time. No Bible translation is without its inaccuracies. The only perfect version is the original autographs in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

Hey! Those ARE in MY Bible, and I use NKJV.

@Ranch4Christ: No. We definitely can call what we have in our hands today as God's inspired Word, and can rely on it for "doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness." However, the original manuscripts are the only ones we can point to as being absolutely perfect, and without the scribal errors we still find in copies of manuscripts. (Even the KVJ has a couple scribal errors.)

Now, I agree 100% with you about many of the advantages of the KJV. It truly is a beautiful translation in many ways, and your points about singular and plural uses of many personal pronouns is a good argument for KJV. I also still prefer to recite many verses from it, because they flow off the tongue so easily:

"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD and in His law doth he meditate day and night."

Love the flow of that language!

Now, just so you know, Shakespeare has been modernized into more contemporary language with many of his plays.

And while I do agree that many people could definitely put in better effort to learn more difficult words in the Old English, the KJV does suffer in many of its translational renderings, particularly because of the limited amount of transcripts available from which it drew, as well as some unreliability in some of its main sources, especially Erasmus (who was a staunch Roman Catholic) and his Greek translation.

Some of today's translations, particularly the NASB & ESV, are the most accurate ones ever written in the English language. However, the variance of difference between all the the main, acceptable translations out there, including KJV, is less than 2%, and those differences are insignificant when it comes to doctrines and systems of theology.

We have access to the most reliable translations possible, and it's reassuring to see how God preserves His Word through supernatural ways.

So that means whatever I disagree with in my Bible, I can just explain away as an error? What if I believe, as Jehovah's Witness do, that Jesus is not God, so I modify all the verses that refer to Jesus as God. Who decides what is erroneous and what is not?

Yes, @Ranch4Christ, go to the extreme end of how to handle this information. Just cut-and-paste what you like and don't like, and call it "new & improved." You could make millions! (Oh wait! The Mormons already did that – with the KJV, no less!)

Anyway, all of the major translations, including the Geneva Bible and the KJV, had translators who worked tirelessly to render the most accurate translation of Scripture based upon the manuscripts they had available at that time. These can reliably be called God's inspired Word.

However, since we do not have access to the original manuscripts, no one can say with all assurance that what we have is as perfect as the original, God-breathed manuscripts – the actual writings of the original human writer who was supernaturally guided and moved by the Holy Spirit.

NONE of the English Bible translators were supernaturally moved and/or guided by the Holy Spirit to compose "inspired" translations. But arguably, upright men worked very hard at translating our English translations with the utmost moral integrity they could muster by the power of the Holy Spirit. There is a difference, though.

The newer translations are not typically translated from the Textus Receptus, like the Geneva, KJV, and NKJV. The Textus Receptus was compiled by Erasmus from Greek manuscripts from what is now modern day Turkey. The Textus Receptus does have verses "omitted" in new translations. Older Greek texts have been found, however, in different places (i.e. Egypt), and these texts do not include the "omitted" verses. That is why newer translations, which were translated from more recently found texts, (or rather compilations of them) do not include the questionable verses.

@InSoloChristo:

I believe the he NKJV is actually based on the Majority Text, not the TR.

The KJV was not translated from the Textus Receptus, but the Stephanus Text (they differ in 287 places). 95% of Greek NT manuscripts we have today agree more with KJV's Stephanus text than the modern texts, which tend to go with the remaining 5%.
Those few supposedly older, thus more original texts come from Alexandria, Egypt (Egyptian texts), while the others come from Antioch, Syria (the Majority, Byzantine texts). Antioch was home to many Bible-believing Christians and was the "home base" of the early church, while Alexandria was the second-largest city of the Roman Empire and inhabited by many Greek infidels. Perhaps the Egyptian manuscripts are older, but if they were worked on by heretics, I'd rather have the newer manuscripts that were faithfully copied by Christians who believed that the Bible was inspired by God.

Some quotes by Westcott and Hort, called the "Fathers of Modern Bible Versions" and compilers of the Egyptian texts used by modern translators:

Westcott: "I suppose I am a communist by nature."
"I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it."

Hort: "Westcott is just coming out with his Norrisian on 'The Elements of the Gospel Harmony.' I have seen the first sheet on Inspiration, which is a wonderful step in advance of common orthodox heresy."
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results."
"Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."
"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father."

Westcott and Hort did not believe in the inspiration of Scripture, were Mary-worshippers, believed in purgatory and many other erroneous Catholic doctrines, believed that the creation story in Genesis was not literal and admired Darwin's theory of evolution. Hort did not believe that Christ's atonement for sins was complete. There are many other erroneous beliefs they held, but I cannot list them all here.

Just a note: while I prefer, recommend, and use the KJV, I will not judge anyone by the version they use and intend to discuss by beliefs sincerely in love. I will not give Satan any satisfaction in seeing Christians divided by the Bible, of all things!

Ranch4Christ: That's some interesting information, especially the first part that "the KJV was not translated from the Textus Receptus." I should get the KJV-Only members of my extended family to read and comment on that; because they have for years argued that the Textus Receptus itself may also be inspired, and that the KJV was completely translated from that. In fact, Dr. Sam Gipp holds the TR up to almost-inspired levels himself. Can't say I've heard that Stephanus Text perspective used before, although that 95% statistic can be misleading, especially if you're including in that your past comments about the plural forms of "ye" and "thee," etc.

What I so appreciate about many of the modern translations is their honest representation about the variances between manuscripts, and will go out of their way to include verses that only showed up in the newer manuscripts out of nowhere. That, to me, makes them even more complete in their presentation, because they're not afraid to point out what other versions, including the KJV, include or exclude. Unfortunately, for the KJV, the one I grew up studying, memorizing, and reading, it doesn't tell me anything about passages that are not supported in older manuscripts, nor the ones that were not present or even debated at some of the early church's councils. I know that KJV publishers and its proponents know of the variances and the sketchiness of including some of the verses and passages that they do, but they refuse to inform the reader of such discrepancies. That just doesn't seem like a fair or complete rendering for the reader for any version to do that.

I have to admit that I do enjoy it when people from the 20th and 21st centuries somehow are able to travel through time and know with certainty the moral, doctrinal, and theological character and positions of people who lived hundreds of years before their existence. I also find it curious how much that intuition they use for one group of people is somehow switched to the "off" position for other groups of people who might damage the seemingly biased conclusions they are trying to posit.

CASE IN POINT: A correct rendering of the doctrine of Total Depravity tells us that ALL men are wicked in their hearts. This would naturally mean that people from America, Australia, Brazil, Fiji, Siberia – you name it – are ALL sinful. It is also pretty fair to say that the early church and the gospel spread throughout the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and even Africa (in fact, Africa is the closest continent to Jerusalem, and the country of Egypt is in Northern Africa). There's a pretty strong likelihood that there were a lot of Bible-believing Christians in Egypt after the 1st century, including its capital of Alexandria. In fact, the book of Acts also tells us that the apostle Phillip was used by God to lead a ruler from Ethiopia to Christ. Ethiopia, to this day, is both in Africa and close to Egypt. While there were definitely heretics in all cities of the 1st century and beyond, it's quite a leap of faith (or lack thereof) to state that maybe, just maybe, these "Greek infidels" and "heretics" "worked on" the Alexandrian manuscripts. Any proof? No, it's just the guilt-by-association argument.

Based on the logic of this argument, we shouldn't even trust the first copiers of the original writers, because most of them hailed from Jerusalem, which was a city of the Roman Empire that was inhabited by Roman & Jewish infidels. That may sound ludicrous, but Paul's epistles provide more evidence of these heretics being present in the early churches than those who supposedly corrupted the Alexandrian texts. Simply because a super large metropolitan city had a lot of "Greek infidels" in it doesn't necessarily mean they were able to sneak in and corrupt all the various texts FOUND in Alexandria. (I emphasize "found," because there's really not even much proof to show that they were actually copied there. They were only found there.

But on an even greater level and getting back to the doctrine of Total Depravity, please tell me you see the huge holes of logic in this Alexandria vs. Byzantine argument? Is it really wise to impugn an entire ancient city, while trying to argue that another city, hundreds of years removed from when it was Biblically recorded to be filled with Bible-believing Christians, was pristine enough to copy other manuscripts? I mean, wouldn't it destroy the whole argument if I provided ample evidence to show that there were many heretics in that Byznatine region the same time that these manuscripts have been dated to have originated? (By the way, that evidence does exist.)

My point is just to make it clear that we really cannot try to defend whether an English translation is solidily better than others by using such sketchy arguments about the perceived righteousness of one ancient city over another, or using quotations by sinful men to infer that an English translation must be sinful, too.

Here's what I know for sure: ALL of the manuscript copiers over the centuries were born with totally depraved hearts and natures. In fact, the original writers of the Bible were wickedly sinful, too! But we know from Scripture that they were regenerated men of God moved by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We also know that Scripture does not make the same claims for any of the copiers of the Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic texts; so any of them, even Byzantine copiers, could have been corrupt and nefarious while copying. To infer that the manuscripts FOUND in Alexandria were not only written there but also corrupted by "Greek infidels" and "heretic," and then to claim so boldly that the "newer manuscripts" "were faithfully copied by Christians who believed that the Bible was inspired by God," is quite audacious and flies in the face of proper research methods, especially when other research exists to show heretics present around the region of the newer manscripts, too.

This all ties in with the final statement of your last post:

"Just a note: while I prefer, recommend, and use the KJV, I will not judge anyone by the version they use and intend to discuss by beliefs sincerely in love. I will not give Satan any satisfaction in seeing Christians divided by the Bible, of all things!"

Your last statement is incongruent with your post that preceded it.

As your brother in Christ, I admonish you that it's not a good thing to do a "hit-and-run" post like that, where you propose some very sketchy "guilt-by-association" arguments (ones that have been aptly defeated by Dr. James White and Alpha Omega Ministries) that mislead people who are reading and are not aware of the arguments (nor their counterarguments, which would have been fairer for you to include), and then to end with a statement that says you do not want to "give Satan any satisfaction in seeing Christians divided by the Bible, of all things!"

Everything you wrote prior to this last statement makes this final statement ring hollow. Only God knows your heart, so I am in no position to say what your intentions were with these two conflicting, seemingly contradictory, statements in your last post; however, I can assess that because you did not give a fair analysis of the English translations, your post was arguably divisive.

Of course, the overall forum topic itself can be quite divisive, and having differing opinions and preferences in our faith, so long as they do not run counter to clear Scriptural teaching, is to be expected and can contribute to healthy debate. I love debate, but I love even more a fair debate, which means giving both sides to an argument and doing our best to argue on solid, impartial footing.

I do not argue on behalf of all non-KJV English translations, I argue for fair debate over the liberty Christians have to use any of the major English translations they prefer, because Scripture is silent on Bible translations, and English ones at that. Therefore, if anyone tries to establish dogmatically that one version is better than the other, then THAT is divisive, and Satan does indeed love that.

BUMPER STICKER (on my brother's car): "If it ain't King James, it ain't Bible."

That says it all right there.

The Majority Text is a Hebrew (and Aramaic) Old Testament; the Textus Receptus is a Greek New Testament.

I'm also not saying that I favor Westcott and Hort's compilation. I do reference it, but typically alongside two Textus Receptus editions, Tischendorf's Eighth Edition Greek New Testament, and a Byzantine Textform, etc.

Otherwise, Wretched Man just said everything I could have said.

Yes, thank you for the distinction, @InSoloChristo.

I meant the TR for the NT.

I knew the plural/singular of the KJV and I think that is good. If only more modern translations would specify whether or not they were plural or singular!

Some of the modern tranlsations will at least point out in the margins if a word is plural or singular in the Hebrew/Greek, which definitely helps.

Thanks so much WM for clarifying some of this. I've been getting worried about it lately. With some of the books I have been reading slamming all bibles except for the KJV. This is God's Bondslave.

One thing that really bothers me about most modern Bible versions is, (to cut right to the chase), the fact that the publishers are getting rich from them. But it doesn't stop there–many key changes in the translations result from this.

"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:10

Let's take a closer look at the NIV's updates, and why it was updated: An interesting fact you might not know, is that the '84 NIV was updated before the copyright was going to run out for the '84 edition, thus the new 2011 NIV was published, renewing the copyright and fitting today's standards to appeal to the masses. We all know the language in the '84 NIV was far from outdated from the conservative Christian's outlook.

Some background: Though a little known fact, In 1988 Zondervan and the NIV was purchased by Harper & Row, Publishers (now HarperCollins Publishers). HarperCollins publishes "pro-homosexual" books such as Making Out, The Book of Lesbian Sex and Sexuality described as "Beautifully illustrated with full-color photography,…" and many other pro-homosexual books. "Even so every GOOD TREE bringeth forth GOOD FRUIT; but a CORRUPT TREE bringeth forth EVIL FRUIT. A GOOD TREE cannot bring forth EVIL FRUIT, neither can a CORRUPT TREE bring forth GOOD FRUIT." Matthew 7:17-18 (Excuse the capitals I can't find bold or italics).

With that in mind, let's look at some of the updates in the 2011 NIV:

1. According to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, "75% of inaccurate gender language translations from the TNIV are retained in the 2011 NIV". (In case any of you didn't know, the Today's New International Version (TNIV) was the first recent attempt to update the NIV, which was a mass failure when conservative Christians cried against the gender-neutral agenda found throughout.)

2. Changes regarding what the Bible teaches about women preaching/speaking in Church: "

1 Timothy 2:12 '84 NIV: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

1 Timothy 2:12 2011 NIV: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.". Note only the change from "have", to "assume", but the difference between "quiet", and "silent". A friend of ours said it best when she said: "Maybe next update it will be no yelling in Church".

Romans 16:7 '84 NIV: "Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was."

Romans 16:7 2011 NIV: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was." From the the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood:
"This verse changes "Junias" (a man's name) to "Junia" (a woman's name; the Greek spelling could refer to either a man or a woman), and now says that "Andronicus and Junia" are "outstanding among the apostles," thus making the woman "Junia" an apostle. This is a highly disputed verse, but the NIV now clearly gives more weight to the feminist argument that says there was at least one woman apostle, and if a woman could be an apostle (like Paul or Peter, presumably), surely women can be pastors and elders as well."

Along the same lines:

Romans 16:1 '84 NIV: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea."

Romans 16:1 2011 NIV: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon" Here, the 2011 NIV is changing the text to advocate women as deacons!

I could give more examples on this subject, but for lack of time I will move onto another subject.

1. The 2011 NIV: changes "father" to "parent" or similar multiple times. A few examples:

Proverbs 15:5 '84 NIV: "A fool spurns his father's discipline, but whoever heeds correction shows prudence."

Proverbs 15:5 2011 NIV: "A fool spurns a parent's discipline, but whoever heeds correction shows prudence."

1 Samuel 18:2 '84 NIV: "From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house."

1 Samuel 18:2 2011 NIV: "From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family." Note that "Father's house", changed to "family".

Proverbs 13:24 '84 NIV: "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him."

Proverbs 13:24 2011 NIV: "Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them." Note "Son", changed to "children".

I could list so many more verses just like these and still be only be just beginning to scratch the surface. I find the obvious agenda behind the 2011 NIV very disturbing. Though our society is changing, and and the '84 NIV was no longer popular in secular women's rights society, thus not selling enough copies, I don't think it's right to change the Bible to fit a corrupt society.

"And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise." John 2:15-16

I find it disturbing that people are making money from publishing the Bible. Hence the result, modifying it to be popular today. You have just seen a small sample of the result. One advantage of versions like the WEB and KJV, is that no one is changing them to appeal to society because no one is making making money from a copyright of a public domain Bible.