Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

639

This started out as a reply to a comment but it's such an important issue that it deserves it's own post.

"Yea hath God said" being, quite literally, the oldest trick in the book the enemy loves to cast doubt on what God really said. (The serpent making Eve question if God really said what He said about not eating the forbidden fruit, and if He did, did He mean it, and if He did was he lying.)

Consider the New Testament, for about a millennium and a half there was essentially no real debate on what the text of the books that comprise the New Testament was.

Those accepted texts were collectively called "the received text" meaning essentially "the same texts we've always had" scholars refer to them as the "Textus Receptus".

About 500 years ago, a guy named Desiderius Erasmus (aka Erasmus of Rotterdam) who has been widely regarded as the smartest man who ever lived, compiled them all together. There was of course the occasional manuscript found that differed from the vast majority and it was rightly discarded.

This assembled Greek Textus Receptus forms the basis for all faithful translations of the (New Testament) Bible, the most recent one in English being the King James Bible.

Since those times scholarly methods of textual criticism have become popular with really "smart" ideas like "well if 120 ancient texts agree and 1 or 2 say something different, the 1 or 2 must be right because they wouldn't go against the grain unless it were true".

Using these sorts of methods God-haters have been able twist the words to say whatever they want to undermine key doctrines of the Bible like the virgin birth, Jesus' death on the cross, the divinity of Christ, etc. And with corrupt minority texts like the codices vaticanus and sinaiticus they release so-called bibles that just change whatever they feel like.

We could do the same sort of breakdown for the old testament and the masoretic text vs the septuagint and get into all that if I felt up to it but hopefully you get the idea.

TL:DR if you speak English you should be reading the King James Bible and not some modern adulteration like the NIV.

*This started out as a reply to a comment but it's such an important issue that it deserves it's own post.* "Yea hath God said" being, quite literally, the oldest trick in the book the enemy loves to cast doubt on what God really said. (The serpent making Eve question if God really said what He said about not eating the forbidden fruit, and if He did, did He mean it, and if He did was he lying.) Consider the New Testament, for about a millennium and a half there was essentially no real debate on what the text of the books that comprise the New Testament was. Those accepted texts were collectively called "the received text" meaning *essentially* "the same texts we've always had" scholars refer to them as the "Textus Receptus". About 500 years ago, a guy named Desiderius Erasmus (aka Erasmus of Rotterdam) who has been widely regarded as the smartest man who ever lived, compiled them all together. There was of course the occasional manuscript found that differed from the vast majority and it was rightly discarded. This assembled Greek Textus Receptus forms the basis for all faithful translations of the (New Testament) Bible, the most recent one in English being the King James Bible. Since those times scholarly methods of textual criticism have become popular with really "smart" ideas like "well if 120 ancient texts agree and 1 or 2 say something different, the 1 or 2 must be right because they wouldn't go against the grain unless it were true". Using these sorts of methods God-haters have been able twist the words to say whatever they want to undermine key doctrines of the Bible like the virgin birth, Jesus' death on the cross, the divinity of Christ, etc. And with corrupt minority texts like the codices vaticanus and sinaiticus they release so-called bibles that just change whatever they feel like. We could do the same sort of breakdown for the old testament and the masoretic text vs the septuagint and get into all that if I felt up to it but hopefully you get the idea. TL:DR if you speak English you should be reading the King James Bible and not some modern adulteration like the NIV.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (11).
[–] • 0 pt

@WileyWallaby I was disappointed that you never answered my simple questions. Which version of the KJB do you prefer and why are the others wrong?

[–] • 0 pt

Take your pick, they're all the same except for spelling and punctuation. Well aside from inclusion of non-canonical stuff like indices and apocryphal books.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Well aside from inclusion of non-canonical stuff like indices and apocryphal books.

Nope! Sorry, you don't get to bush aside this. The removal of these items is FAR more significant than the delta between NASB and KJV (for example.)

As much noise as you made about the 1611 version being the 'right' one ... to brush these changes off is just down right silly. Laughable.

And, yes - spelling and punctuation matters. Especially punctuation. It's a smaller point, but I won't let you get away with that hand wave either.

So, sounds like you believe the 1611 original version is wrong, which - I'd politely suggest - nullifies your original argument.

As such, we will move beyond that:

I'd politely challenge you to show me a few reference passages (3-4 will suffice) that the "adulterated" NASB gets wrong in a doctrinally meaningful way but the (1994?) KJV gets right. To keep this discussion simple, I'd suggest limiting this discussion to the NT. Please refer to your Greek NT and I'll do the same with mine. (I keep a copy of the Greek NT around for my personal studies ... it's useful. You seem passionate about translation accuracy, so I'd assume you do the same? If I'm mistaken, then please forgive.)

Personally, I prefer the NET as I find it to be both very accurate and easy to read. But, I recognize it it less popular ... so I'll be happy to hold up the NASB against the (1994?) KJV.

Aside: I must give you some context from my perspective: You may feel that I'm pushing hard on this point, which is true. Years ago, I had a friend who was struggling with his faith. He was reading the Bible (I don't know the version) while staying with a mutual friend. This mutual friend's mother come up to him and took his Bible from him and rip it apart (split the spine) and threw it in the trash. She destroyed it in front of him, because it wasn't the 'right' version ... i.e ... KJV. I guess in her twisted mind, it was better to not read the Bible vs read an "adulterated" version. This (in part) caused my friend to walk away from his faith for several years. This was an evil act. I don't say this lightly, but I truly believe she sinned in her actions ... he was at a vulnerable point and she created a stumbling block for a fellow Christian. She got so focused on the 'right' version of the English Bible that she missed Christ's message, completely. She was blinded by her own ideologue.

While I don't accuse you of acting evil like this lady, I would politely suggest you (and others like you) of being short sighted and creating needless controversy in the Christian church.

Bottom line: In my humble opinion, the 'KJV only' dogma doesn't hold up intellectually or historically, and ... most importantly ... distracts from the message of Christ.

I've said a whole lot. No need for you to reply if you don't want to. I promise I won't needle you further. But, hopefully you contemplate on what I've said here. Hopefully you can consider the cost of being dogmatic with respect to your fellow believers in the body of Christ.

Cheers.

[–] • 0 pt

Nope! Sorry, you don't get to bush aside this. The removal of these items is FAR more significant than the delta between NASB and KJV (for example.)

Too late, I already did brush them aside, cause they aren’t part of the Holy Scriptures and as I’ve said several times their inclusion or lack thereof has no more bearing on the matter than the inclusion of maps, commentary, or historical references.