1. It supports the fact that God's words are preserved forever. PsalmReply: I also believe in divine providence, but can this scripture support it. The KJV has "thou shalt preserve them" while the NIV has "you will keep us safe." When the Jews first translated the Scriptures into Greek (LXX), they used the term HMAS which is also used at Matt 6:13, "lead US not into temptation." The KJV translators realized this, and in the 1611 edition, they put these words in the footnote: "Heb. him, i. every one of them."
12:6-7. Other versions such as the NIV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, etc. have changed
the meaning of the context making you think that in verse 7 the context is God's people instead of God's words.
2. It supports the fact that Jesus is God manifested in the flesh. He is both God and man. I Tim.3:16.Reply: The reading in the KJV may have the support of most of the later Greek manuscripts, but the oldest manuscripts, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and even the scriptures cited during the Trinitarian controvery surrounding the Nicene Council did not have this scripture at their disposal. The latter would surely have used it had it actually existed at that time. The following is a chart giving support AGAINST QEOS/Theos/God at 1 Tim 3:16.
| Period | Sources that Do Not Support
KJV Reading |
Major English Versions that
do not Support the KJV Reading |
|---|---|---|
| 254 A.D. | Origen | Douay - Rheims Bible |
| 362 A.D. | Victorinus-Rome | English Revised Version |
| 3-4 Century | Sahidic Coptic | American Standard Version |
| 3-4 Century | Boharic Coptic | J.N.Darby Version mg |
| 325 A.D. | Nicene Council | Rotherham's Emphasized Bible |
| 367 A.D. | Hilary | Revised Standard Version |
| 4th Century | Codex Sinaiticus | New American Standard Bible |
| 4th Century | Gothic mss | New World Translation |
| 4th Century | Ambrosiaster | New English Bible |
| 401 A.D. | Latin Vulgate | New International Version |
| 403 A.D. | Epiphanus | Good News Bible |
| 412 A.D. | Pelagius | Phillips N.T. |
| 430 A.D. | Augustine | New International Version |
| 5th Century | Codex Alexandrinus | Jerusalem Bible |
| 5th Century | Armenian text | New American Bible |
| 420 A.D. | Jerome | 20th Century N.T. |
| 428 A.D. | Theodore | 21st Century N.T. |
| 5th Century | Codex Ephraimi | Bible in Living English |
| 434 A.D. | Eutherius | Contemporary English Version |
| 444 A.D. | Cyril | Jewish New Testament |
| 5th Century | Cyril to Ps Oecumenius | International English Bible |
| 5th Century | Bezae Cantabrigiensis | The Original New Testament |
| 566 A.D. | Liberatus | New Revised Standard Version |
| 6th Century | Codex Claromontanus | English Standard Version |
| Harclean Syriac | Holman Christian Standard Bible | |
| Palestinian Syriac | Modern Language Bible | |
| 6th Century | Ethiopian (Platt&Praetorius) | New Jerusalem Bible |
| 6th Century | Ethiopic Rome | Concordant Literal N.T. |
| 9th Century | ms G (012) | Westcott Hort Greek Text |
| 9th Century | Ardmachanus Latin | Nestle Greek Text |
| 9th Century | Augiensis Latin | Nestle Aland Greek Text |
| 9th Century | Bodleianus Latin | United Bible Societies Gk Text |
| 9th Century | Boernerianus Latin | New Living Translation |
| 10th Century | ms 33 | An American Translation |
| 10th Century | Monza Latin | New Century Version |
| 11th Century | Lectionary 599 | English Revised Version |
| ms 365 | Unvarnished New Testament | |
| ms 2127 | William Barclay N.T. | |
| 12th Century | Colbertinus Latin | Lamsa's Holy Bible |
| 13th Century | ms 442 | Weymouth New Testament |
| 13th Century | Harleianus/Lodiniensus | Williams New Testament |
| 13th Century | Demidovianus Latin | The Complete Bible/Fenton |
| 13th Century | Divionensis Latin | The Common Bible |
| 14th Century | ms 61 | Smith&Goodspeed Bible |
| 17th Century | Isaac Newton | NET Bible |
But what does it really mean for God to be manifest in Christ Jesus anyways? Consider the following scriptures:
Romans 1:18-20 says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.God is "manifest" in his very creation, and by looking at that creation, we see what God is like. The Greek word for manifest, phaneroo, means "to make visible, clear, manifest." (Vine's)
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."The Son, like the rest of creation, reveals to us the unrevealable God.
In fact, a closer look at the word "manifest" in the KJV seems to indicate
a revealing of certain impressions with certain connotations, and often
times something previously unrevealable.
For instance, Jesus' life after his ascension is revealed in us Christians:
2 Cor 4:10,11, "Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh."Mark 4:22 "For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad."
We cannot physically see glory in any embodied form, but we can see it revealed to us in Jesus' miracles:
John 2:11, "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him."We cannot physically see "deeds" in any embodied form, but we can see it in the light of truth:
John 3:21, "But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."We cannot physically see "God's works" in any embodied form, but we can see it in our actions:
John 9:3 "Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."Jesus will manifest himself to us, by showing us Christians what he is like:
John 14:21 "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."We cannot physically see "God's name" (Ps 83:18) in any embodied form, but we can learn of it, thanks to Jesus:
John 17:6 "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world"We cannot physically see "the works of the flesh" in any embodied form, but we can see it in our actions:
Gal 5:19 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness..."When we read "God manifest in the Flesh" it means we cannot physically see God (John 1:18; Ex 33:20) but we can see what he is like by looking at Jesus. Translator Barclay made an interesting statement about John 1:1
"When John said 'The Word was God' he was n o t saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like" (The Icily Study Bible- The Gospel of John vol.1)Reply: Most modern versions that I have looked at still render it "virgin" or "maiden." I agree with the rendering of "virgin" or "maiden" though "young woman" cannot be argued against from a grammatical point of view. For more, click here.3. It supports the fact that Jesus is born of a virgin. Isaiah 7:14. Other versions have "young woman" such as NRSV, REB.
4. It supports the fact that Joseph is not Christ's real father. Luke 2:23. KJV stated "Joseph" but other version such as the NIV has "The child's father".Reply: The NIV is following the reading of the oldest manuscripts here, which do not contain the name "Joseph" here. But let us not assume that the NIV has no mention of Joseph as the earthly father of Jesus. "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" John 6:42 NIV
5. It supports the fact that Christ is eternal and has no beginnings. Micah 5:2.Reply: The same words used in Micah 5:2 are used for others who are not God. The psalmist could remember qedem AND olam (Ps 77:5).
6. It supports the fact that Jesus existed in the Old Testament times. Daniel 3:25. Other versions such as the NIV, NASB, NWT, have stated "a son of the gods" but the KJV stated "The Son of God".Reply: In question 19 you object to Jesus as an angel, yet 3 verses later at Daniel 3:28, it reads, "Nebuchadnezzar spake and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and have yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God."
7. It supports the fact that redemption and forgiveness of sins is through the blood of Jesus Christ. Colossians 1:14. Other versions omitted the words "through his blood".Reply: This reading is not even in the Majority (Byzantine text-type) of manuscripts. It actually seem to be native to the Textus Receptus and the Clementine Vulgate, which is why we also have it in the older Catholic versions, like the Douay and Knox. It is simply an interpolation of Ephesians 1:7, which all Bibles have: "through his blood, we gain our freedom, the forgiveness of our sins." New Jerusalem Bible
8. It supports the fact that Christ is God and will be the one to judge at the "Judgment Seat of Christ". Other versions have "God's judgment seat" (NIV) and "Judgment seat of God" (NASB, NRSV).Reply: If God the Father "hath committed all judgment unto the Son...And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man," (John 5:22,27) then it follows that both can Judge, especially as it all reverts back to the Father anyways, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father." 1 Cor 15:24
9. It supports the fact that faith in Christ is a requisite to baptismReply: The verse in itself is not objectionable, however I cannot find any other occurences of the term TON IHSOUN CRISTON as we have it at Acts 8:37. This is one reason why we know it was added to the later manuscripts. The reading that we have in the KJV is missing from P74, P75, Aleph, A,B,C, 33, 81, 614, vg, syr(p)(h), cop(sa)(bo), and the Ethiopic mss.
in water. Acts 8:37. Other versions have the entire verse missing.
10. .It supports the Biblical fact that there are so called "science" but are false teachings. I Tim.6:20. An example of this is the Evolution Theory which many people call "science" but is a false teaching. The NKJV replaced the word "science" with "knowledge".Reply: The NKJV does NOT replace it with "knowledge", but "contradictions."
11. It supports the fact that a heretic must be rejected, not just a divisive person. Titus 3:10. Other versions replaced the word "heretic" with the word "divisive". Such is favorable to the ecumenical because they will only reject those who will cause division in their unity but won't reject the heretic.Reply: An heretick IS a divisive person. It comes from a word meaning "to choose" (See Matthew 12:18) Other Bibles, including Catholic ones also have "heretic" (see Catholic Douay Rheims Bible).
12. It supports the fact that believers must STUDY the Word of God carefully with an analytical mind in order to have a proper understanding of God's word. II Tim.2: 15. Other versions omitted the word "study". This is the only verse in the NT where the word "study" is being commanded.Reply: The word "study" as it is used in the KJV simply has a different meaning than it does today" as even my word for word TR gives the right meaning, "Be eager." This is borne out by the use of the same word in the KJV at 1 Thess 4:11 "and that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your hands, even as we charged you"
13. It supports the fact that men must teach the truth and must not corrupt the Word of God. II Cor.2:17. Other versions changed the word "corrupt" to "peddle"(NIV), "peddlers" (NRSV), "peddling" (NASB).Reply: The American Standard Version also has "corrupt," but it seems both meaning can be used. Strong's has "from kapelos (a huckster); to retail, i.e. (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively)." My word for word TR gives "hawking" as the correct meaning, but the KJV seems to follow more closely the Catholic Bibles and the Latin Vulgate, "adulterantes verbum Dei."
14. It is harmonious to the biblical fact that Mary had other children by Joseph because of the word firstborn". Jesus is the firstborn of Mary in her virginity and did not remain to be a perpetual virgin. Other versions have omitted the word "firstborn" in Matt.1:25.Reply: This is a strawman argument as the older Catholic Bibles (of which the KJV is greatly indebted) also had "firstborn" here (Lat. primogenitum).
15. It supports the doctrine of the Trinity. I John 5:7.Reply: The Greek text underlying the King James Version comes to us thanks to Erasmus. Let us now take the words of Erasmus himself regarding this text:
"That in the Greek, only these words are found: for there are three that bear record, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.If the Reformers can see the spuriousness of this verse (click here for Martin Luther's comments etc.), a verse that is grossly under-represented in the manuscript evidence on every scale (Majority and ancient), a verse that is rejected especially by those who would embrace its theological value, then we should also reject this verse as highly troublesome and dangerously agendaized.
That this passage is so cited by Cyril in the 14th book of his Thesaurus, and that an orthodox father, as he was, would infallibly have cited the whole passage against the Arians, if he had found it in any copies of his time.
That the same may be said of Augustin, who also cites it thus against Maximinus the Arian, although he omits nothing to establish the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, and although he pretends that the spirit, the water, and the blood, signify the Father, the son and the Holy Ghost.
That Beda cites the passage in the same manner as Augustin.
That the controverted words are not in a manuscript of the Minor Friers of Antwerp, which he had examined.
That indeed the authority of Jerom is urged on this occasion; but that this father seems to complain, in a preface which is prefixed to the Catholic Epistles, not of the Greek manuscripts, but of those who translated the Greek Testament into Latin; and that at present the words, which, as he complains, were omitted, are not to be found in the Greek manuscripts, but only in some of the Latin ones.
But whence could Jerom discover this error of the translators? It must have been by the help of the Greek copies. But these Greek copies either were or were not comformable to our version. If they varied, as well as the Latin versions, by what indications can we show which is the best reading which he censures was publicly used in the Church. If this were not the case, I know not what can be made of the following words: Sed tu, virgo Christi, Eustochium, dum a me impensius Scripturae veritatem inquiris, meam quodammodo senectutem invidorum dentibus corredendam exponsis, quie me falsarium corruptoremque sacrarum pronunciant Scripturarum. For who would have called him a forger and a falisifier, unless he changed the common reading of the place. If Cyril amongst the Greeks did read what we read now in our Greek manuscripts, if Augustin and Beda did read so, or if they fouind both the one and the other reading, I see not what reason Jerom could give to prove that his way of reading was the true one. Some will say, This text furnisheth us with a strong argument against the Arians. But first, since it is certain that the manner of reading this passage hath varied amongst the Greeks and Latins, we cannot object it to them, because they will have the same right to claim that reading which favors them. But let it be supposed that the passage is incontestable, since what is said of the testimony of the water, the blood, and the spirit, that they are one (unum sunt, or rather that they amount to one, hEIS TO hEN EISI), relates not to an unity of nature, but to an uniformity of testimony, could the Arians, think we, be so stupid as not to interpret in the same manner what is said of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit? especially since the orthodox explain in the same way a passage in the Gospel of St. John; since Augustin rejects not this interpretation, when he disputes with Maximinus the Arian; and since the interlineary gloss explains it thus; Unum sunt, id est, de eadem re testantur. This is not the way to establish the faith, but to make it suspected, by trusting to such weak surmises. Perhaps it would be better to use our pious endeavors to become one with God and with Christ, than to discuss, with an over-curious zeal, how the Son differeth from the Father, and how the Holy Ghost from the one and the other. In truth, I see not how we can prove what the Arians denied, except by satisfactory arguments. In a word, this whole passage, being obscure, can be of small service for the confutation of heretics, &c.
But not to dissemble anything, one single Greek manuscript hath been discovered in England, wherein what is wanting in other manuscripts is found thus: "hOti TREIS EISIN OI MARTUROUNTES hEN TW OURANW, PATHR, LOGOS, KAI PNEUMA, KAI OUTOI OI TREIS hEN EISIN. KAI TREIS EISIN MARTUROUNTES hEN TH GH, PNEUMA, UDWP, KAI AIMA hEIS THN MARTURIAN TWN ANQRWPWN, &c., yet, I know not by what accident, what is in our Greek copies is not repeated here, KAI OI TREIS hEIS TO hEN EISIN, and these three agree in one. From this English manuscript we have supplied what is said to be deficient in our copies, that no one might take occasion to calumniate us; although I suspect that this manuscript hath been corrected and accomodated to some of our [Latin] copies. I have consulted two Latin manuscripts of very great antiquity in the library of St. Donatian at Bruges. Neither of them have the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and in one of them were no the words in earth; there was only There are three who bear record, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood. In two manuscripts of Constance, after the testimony of the Water, the Blood, and the Spirit, were added these words; as in heaven there are three, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and three are one. There was neither testimonium dant, nor the pronoun hi. In a manuscript which I had from the public library of the University of Basel, there was not the testimony of the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood; Paulus Bombasius, at my request, copied out this passage from a very old manuscript in the Vatican Library. which had not the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and with this manuscript agree the edition of Aldus."
Jortin's Life of Erasmus, Vol. II. pp. 230-233
16. It proves the truth that Jesus is God and is coming again. Rev.11:17. Other versions omitted "art to come".Reply: This addition to the KJV is not even highly favored by those who hold highly the Byzantine/Majority text-type (it is not included in the Hodges-Fartad Majority Text).
17. It proves the fact that Christ is going to defeat and conquer the kingdoms of this world and such kingdoms will become His kingdoms. Revelation 11:15 talks about the kingdoms of this world, (plural) not the Kingdom of God (singular).Reply: The Textus Receptus is a family text of the larger Byzantine text type. This reading is not in the majority (Byzantine) text and of course, it is not in the older manuscripts which all read BASILEIA not BASILEIAI.
"Note the difference here between the AV translation, "the kingdoms of the world," and the more accurate ASV rendering of Kingdom, singular, as in the Greek text. The whole world now appears to be under one powerful universal government." Wycliffe Bible Commentary.However, nothing is lost with either reading. It is this kind of nit-picking that leads one to become as the following:
18. It proves that Jesus is not just a man, rather He is God who became man as you read I John 4:3 and relate it with John 1:1-3, and verse 14.Reply: Or rather it proves that the scribes of the KJV text added what was already mentioned in verse 2, "every inspired utterance that acknowledges that Jesus has come in human form [flesh] comes from God" An American Translation by Smith&Goodspeed
19. It proves the fact that Jesus is not an archangel as the "Jehovah Witnesses" cult believes. But He is God who chose to become man and to have the nature of man as the phrase in Heb.2:16 says, "...took on him the seed of Abraham". Compare with Heb.2:14, 17; 5:4, Phil.2:7). Other versions has the leaning that Jesus just helps the descendants of Abraham.Reply: Actually it is the KJV that has helped Jesus to the position of an angel (despite the fact that the KJV has actually added words in Hebrews 2:16...notice the words in italics, they are not in any Greek text). Where the Hebrew text uses ADONI of Jesus at Psalm 110:1, it capitalizes this word (Lord) as it refers to Jesus. This same word is used 195 times of others, but when it refers to Christ, it is capitalized. The KJV capitalizes this word THREE other times, at Joshua 5:14; Judges 6:13 and Daniel 12:8, each time referring to an angel, who is also considered to Jesus.
John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol.
3,
page 2048 states:
"The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the
pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition
of the "child" and the archangel in Rev 12, but also in the attributes
ascribed to him in Dnl .
Protestant Reformer JOHN CALVIN said regarding "Michael" in its occurence
at
Daniel 12:1:
"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of
Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing
forward for the defense of his elect people."
J. Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, trans. T.
Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369
20. It supports the fact that the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer will not lead him to do or speak anything or pray something out of his mind or without proper understanding. The Charismatic and the Pentecostals today claim that when one is filled with the Spirit, he can pray without understanding it. But such practice is unscriptural. (II Tim.1:7, I Cor.14:15, Mark 12:30).Reply: All Bibles clearly tell us that "speaking in tongues" was understandable speech:
21. It shows us that the Bible is harmonious because it teaches that Jesus is the bright and MORNING STAR according to Rev.22:16 (KJV) but Lucifer is "Son of the morning" according to Isaiah 14:12 (KJV). However other versions have Satan also called "Morning Star" in Isaiah 14:12.Reply: And the KJV calls both Jesus AND Satan a "Lion" (1 Peter 5:8 & Rev 5:5). It is interesting that you bring this up, in light of the above, as "Stars are sometimes used as symbols for angels. Job 38:7 alludes to the sons of God (angels) as morning stars. Similarly, in Rev. 1:20 the seven stars of the vision are identified as angels of the seven churches. This is probably also the sense of Dan. 8:10, where the little horn caused some of the "host of heaven" and the stars to fall to the earth (cf. Isa. 14:12-13; Rev. 12:4). Jude 13 calls certain apostates in the Church "wandering stars" (cf. the unfaithful angels in 1 Enoch)." Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 1250
22. It supports the truth that God is glorified in the church founded BY Christ Jesus, not in the churches founded by men, Eph.3:21.Reply: This is somewhat misleading, as NO Bible uses the word "men" here. The Bible record clearly tells us otherwise (see 1 Thess 1:1; 2:14; 2 Thess 1:1).
23. It supports the fact that a newly born again person must grow by God's word. I Peter 2:2. Other versions such as the Today's English Version (TEV) mentioned that one must grow to be saved.Reply: Let us take a look then: "Be like newborn babies, always thirsty for the pure spiritual milk, so that by drinking it you may grow up and be saved." TEV
What does all this mean? A variety of Bible translations and version can help us to understand better God's written word. A word that was not given to us in the English (or the KJV old English), but in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. The King James Version is a remarkable historical achievement, and every home should have one. But to deny the use of all others and condemn them as *heretical,* *corrupt,* or *perVersions* is anti-God, anti-Bible....and anti-KJV. Notice here was the translators of the KJV had to say:
"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [poorest] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."The Translators to the Reader, preface of the 1611 King James Version.
Every Bible is the Word of God. Read God's Word, the Holy Bible daily.
For more on the King James Bible, click here,
and here.
Search the King James Version
w/Apocrypha