HomeBasic BibleReasons Why the King James Version is the Best English Translation of the Bible Log in

Comments

Reasons Why the King James Version is the Best English Translation of the Bible — 5 Comments

  1. An excellent read James and a brilliant summary of the reasons I cling to my King James Bible and know it to be the pure word of God in English. And unlike most modern bibles it is a true literal translation and not a very loose transliteration.

    God preserved his Word in the over a thousand surviving textus receptus manuscripts, each of which agree with one other beautifully. On the other hand, vaticanus is locked away deep inside the vatican and sinaticus was found among garbage in a monastery, a paltry 2 manuscripts that don’t even agree with each other.

    The very idea that modern translators ignore the textus receptus and instead base modern translations on 2 clearly horribly flawed manuscripts is disgusting to me. And I think it shows how active the enemy has been in trying to cast doubt upon and pervert the Word of God. Most of the hundreds of verses missing or modified in the modern translations are verses that prove Jesus’ divinity and his equality with the Father, which to me shows a clear agenda as to why things were altered.

    Keep fighting the good fight James, and thank you for sharing these important truths. May God bless and keep and protect you and your loved ones and give you all joy and peace in believing.

    • Thank you, Louie, for your encouragement. I felt inspired to post this article because of a lady who is promoting modern translations. She denies the doctrine of the Trinity, and uses modern translations to support her views.

  2. Dear James,

    While I agree with your basic conclusions about the superiority of the King James Version of the Bible, your suggestion that the Sinaiaticus and the Vaticanus are the oldest may not be true. I suggest that you secure and read a book by David W. Daniels entitled “Is the ‘World’s Oldest Bible’ a Fake?” He is referencing the Sinaiaticus. I believe you will find his arguments quite compelling. He believes it was a rather recent forgery! He also presents some rather compelling arguments with regard to the Vaticanus.

    Your friend in Christ,
    Richard B. Hirst

  3. Very good rundown of the modern translations! I do think. The Gnostic gospels you speak came from Nag Hammadi (Jordan not Egypt) Further, the Codex Vaticanus came partially from the texts stored in the Jewish synagogue at Cairo (Alexandria is in the delta). Both the Peshitta (Aramaic) and the Vetus Latina (“Old Latin Bible,” Greek and Latin) were written by the actual apostles (not copied and re-copied over hundreds of years like the Antioch). I enjoyed your article very much

Leave a Reply

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

ten − 8 =

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

James Japan