The Supremacy Of The King James 1611 Authorized Version Holy Bible

We live in a world over 350 different versions of the Bible, and they all have one thing in common. They are all different and in conflict with each other. The King James Bible is the one that all other versions are compared to, and rightly so.
supremacy-of-king-james-1611-authorized-version-holy-bible-study-prophecy-rightly-dividing-nteb

Do YOU have the words that God wrote?

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” Psalm 12:6,7 (KJV)

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN LIVE when the show starts tonight at 9:00PM EST!

We live in a world over 350 different versions of the Bible, and they all have one thing in common. They are all different and in conflict with each other. The King James Bible is the one that all other versions are compared to, and rightly so.

king-james-1611-av-authorized-version-holy-bible-versus-new-international

On this episode of Rightly Dividing, we conduct an honest and thoughtful comparison between the King James Bible and many of today’s popular “best sellers”. The results will surprise you, and in many cases shock you. Do YOU have the words that God wrote? Find out by tuning in.

NTEB STUDY GUIDE: THE KING JAMES AV 1611 BIBLE VS. THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN LIVE when the show starts tonight at 9:00PM EST!

 

NTEB is run by end times author and editor-in-chief Geoffrey Grider. Geoffrey runs a successful web design company, and is a full-time minister of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. In addition to running NOW THE END BEGINS, he has a dynamic street preaching outreach and tract ministry team in Saint Augustine, FL.
  • Leonard

    Just bought a copy of this! Looking forward to tonight’s show…

  • John33

    I am reading the the 1611 pure edition which you can download for free on a site if you want the download link i can give it. For me its the best bible its easier to read then all other and i feel peace reading it!

    • Ian Hausser

      Can you post the link please?

  • Sr

    I feel Geneva translation (minus the commentary by the translators) is just as good as KJV.
    Any thoughts?

    • Geneva is good, the KJV is better….

      • klaus

        Why is it better? Because you say so. Besides the Geneva Bible, the Tyndale’s Bible is equally as good. really the best Bible is the one you read. Any Bible can serve its purpose if you read it with light. without light no matter what version you have is worthless.

    • Sola scriptura

      The Geneva is pretty solid, but for a very strange verse on marriage in either Micah 2 or 3. I don’t have access to one to look it up. The notes that accompany it are heavily Calvinist. It does use the correct Greek manuscript – the Textus Receptus aka majority text aka the Byzantine text. So it has that going for it…which is nice. Some more KJV info is below…this info forced me to switch to KJV after decades of NIV delight now, in light of clear, hard evidence…there is no going back:
      http://followingjesuschrist3.com/2015/10/24/the-bible-version-controversy-a-brief-history/

      • carrierwave

        John Calvin, the “pope of Geneva”, murderer of Dr. John Servitus, for disagreeing with him on his catholic Augustinian approach to the trinity and election was one of the translators of the Geneva Bible. His influence is seen in the notes and word choices. I really don’t trust anything calvin, the protestant pope, had his fingerprints on.

  • Cochise

    Is NKJ not good?

    • No…it deletes repentance 44 times, the blood 11 times and has many other changes. The article I linked above has a NKJV chart at the end so you can see the intentional edits for yourself.

      • Picky

        The pro KJV people throw stuff out there that is absolutely false or absolutely misleading. This for example. The word “repentance” only occurs 26 times in the KJV, so how the NKJV could “delete” it 44 times is a genuine puzzle. In truth, the NKJV doesn’t “delete” the word (metanoya) a single time and translates it “repentance” in every instance it occurs in the KJV. Two other words are translated “repentance” in the KJV – (“nocham”) in Hosea 13:14 – God is speaking – “I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.” In the NKJV the word is translated as “pity” – “pity is hidden from my eyes” which, by the way, is a more correct translation. The other word (“ametameletos”) the KJV translates as “without repentance” in Rom 11:29 “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” hte NKJV translates as “irrevocable” – For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable”. While I am absolutely “sola scriptura”, the KJV is a TRANSLATION that has problems of its own as virtually all of them do. I formally preferred the NASB 1975 edition, but I am becoming more fond of the NKJV.

    • chris

      The NKJV is excellent.

  • Cochise, compare 1 Cor. 1:21 in a KJV to the NKJV. KJV says the act of preaching is foolish whereas the NKJV says the message which is preached is foolish. That means that Christ’s blood atonement, death burial and resurrection according to the NKJV is foolish.

    • beccaj

      Dominic,

      You have taken 1 Corinthians 1:21 out of context. The NKJV is not saying “Christ’s blood atonement, death burial and resurrection…is foolish.” The NKJV is clearly saying the message of the cross— “Christ crucified” —is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. “Christ crucified” is a stumbling block to the Jews and to the Greeks it is foolishness.

      18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

      “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
      And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

      20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1

      I too could do the same thing you’re doing Dominic, anyone can. For example, in 1 Corinthians 1:25 the KJV and the NKJV say “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” That means there is foolishness and weakness with God according to the KJV and the NKJV. You see? Of course such a claim would be as unfair and absurd as is your claim against the NKJV regarding 1 Corinthians 1:21.

    • Picky

      Congratulations, you have just pointed out 2 very important truths. 1) To understand what scripture is saying it is imperative that you read it in context. 2) The original KJV is not always the best translation.

      1Cor 1:21 is not a teaching in itself, it is a verse in context. More importantly, introductory context. Paul is laying the groundwork for the points he is serious about making for the church at Corinth. In context you see where, a couple of verses later, he makes it clear that the foolishness he is speaking about is the message, not the style in which it is communicated. This is the intro. He is reminding the Corinthians where they came from. As unsaved people who did indeed regard the blood atonement, death, burial, and resurrection as foolish. Peter says the same thing, only he used the term stumbling block. Another way of thinking about the phrase may be “Hard to swallow.” If you have a hard time grasping the reality of what Paul is saying, try preaching to a dyed in the wool Atheist. Then go back and read 1Cor 1; the whole chapter instead of looking for a proof text to justify your turning the KJV into a religious icon.

  • GiGi

    How can the KJV be superior to all the other versions of the Bible? It was made during a time where a) they had to change a lot of words so that King James and the church of the time would not get on their case and b) they had newer, more corrupted versions of the transcripts of the Bible. As for us, we don’t speak the way the KJV is written…I can not read it and understand it easily. And what about all the people who speak different languages? They don’t have the KJV.

    • Dan

      Speaking of 1 Cor: 1-31 Isn’t hilarious that the very thing that Paul is telling us GOD is doing to the foolish

      believers; is exactly what we are talking about here with the very book we should be getting wisdom from.

      None of us can agree on what version is right. It seems Paul has failed because the division is vast among Christians.

      You see people my point is The Gospel is straightforward and is what I believe GOD wanted us to understand.

      There is no mistaken the fact that Jesus corrected whatever it was that separated us from GOD. You either accept it or

      you do not. THE GOSPEL does not need to be rewritten over and over. You either get it or you don’t. You believe it

      or reject it. This is what GOD is talking about in the inspiration to Paul 1 Corinthians: 1 -31 Those that reject GOD

      have been blinded on purpose by GOD. Just interact with any atheist online and be chastised for being a fool.

      It is absolutely incredible to me how nasty these people get when they try to show me how smart they are and how foolish

      I must be. Anyway, people use the bible to learn but remember it is that which you received from GOD which is more

      important so stop arguing with each other. And, be honest; if knowing what was originally written in the 1st century is

      so important to you make the effort to learn the language it was written in. Otherwise, quit beating your chest and

      telling everyone how important your book is compared to the others because they all proclaim the GOOD NEWS and that is

      what GOD wants us to understand!

      Blessings

    • Sola scriptura

      Read my link below Gigi and you will understand…assuming that you truly want to figure this issue out:
      http://followingjesuschrist3.com/2015/10/24/the-bible-version-controversy-a-brief-history/

      • GiGi

        (It’s GiGi, actually, not Gigi, but people mess that up all the time.)
        If you truly knew/believed what the article said, you wouldn’t have to post a link to it.
        We don’t know for sure at all that the Greek manuscripts were ‘watered down’ as this article says.
        The thing is, ALL translations of the Bible are flawed, except for the original manuscripts, and we don’t have any of those. It’s always going to be that way, and all translations are going to be different based on the manuscripts people use and how the people choose to word things into our language.
        Saying the KJV is ‘supreme’ is arrogant. It is arrogant to assume that the best version of the Bible is one that only a portion of the human population has the ability to read. But we, in our cozy American lives, don’t tend to think about the millions of people who do not read English, let alone such old English, and have only one, if not any, translation of the Bible in their language, do we?
        Even if the article is right, I still believe that God can use any version of the Bible to speak to us, no matter how ‘watered down’ it is.

        • Sola scriptura

          In my view, it’s not the KJV that is supreme, but it is the TR. hundreds of millions of Spanish speakers have the Reina Valera, a TR translation. There are TR translations on other languages as well, but Satan has done a spectacular job of getting men to worship the gnostic and even occultic Alexandrian manuscripts. Many of the edits W&H made were to intentionally favor the Catholic Church. Their own letters condemn them. You are free to believe what you want, but no Gnostics and no seance lovers are touching my bible…ever.

          • GiGi

            As long as nobody is condemning me or anyone else to Hell for not using the KJV…then I am absolutely fine if one prefers the KJV (or the TR) to the others, as long as they understand it.

        • tiptopsaidhe

          GiGi, it will take a heart to dig down and find the truth. Study how the KJV translators went about the task and you will find God’s hand at work.

          The translators of the “minority” texts, not the ones used by the KJV translators, were men named Westcott and Hort. Neither man believed in the deity of Jesus. That should tell you all you need to know to enable you to throw away any other perversion of the bible.

          The Sword Bible is the authorized 1611KJV, but makes use of modern language changes like “giveths” to “gives.” It takes nothing from the text, makes no contextual changes, and has been researched to be proven to be true to the authorized version. My 12 yr old reads and understands the Sword Bible. They also utilize all the names of God and Jehovah throughout the texts. It adds beautiful light to the various names and pictures of our great God!

    • chris

      Well said, Gigi. Also the NIV is translated from much older manuscripts than the few used for the KJV. THe KJV is simply another version among many. To think it is some special version better than the rest shows that you are not thinking.

    • Picky

      GiGi, First let me say that every English translation, with very few exceptions, has come to us through the work of a team of dedicated, God fearing men, learned in Greek and Aramaic, earnestly trying to convey the Word of God in a way that people of their time can understand what it is trying to communicate. Some figure culture into their translation equation. Some figure age in. Regardless, some things in the scripture are just hard to understand, like “propitiation” (which, by the way, the KJV translators looked to the Latin Vulgate to figure that one out.) There are a few Greek words that occur only once in the Bible and have not been found in any other Greek literature. No one alive today really knows how to translate the word exactly, so all give it their best shot from the context. For example, in Matthew 6 and Luke 11: “Give us this day our daily epiousios”. It might be from a root word which KJV translates “next” or “following”. How they came up with “Bread” is anybody’s guess, but virtually every English translation takes its cue from the KJV translators. It could very well mean “bread”, “hope”, “word”, “breath”, “vision”, etc.
      The KJV was translated at a time when there was a movement by the church at large to have the scripture in a language they could understand. This has always been the pattern. The Bible was originally written in Aramaic (mostly) and Greek, the languages of the authors. When the church grew large in Italy, it was translated into Latin. This became the “holy” translation for the church in Rome and it resisted all further translation. When the KJV was translated at the behest of King James for his Church of England (that still maintains the copyright in England), the purpose was to have the Bible in a translation the people could understand. For some, this has become the “holy” translation, and they resist any further translation. It was written in the best early 17th century, proper English. (A far cry from the street language much of the New Testament was written in. By the way, No one today has the “original” KJV as the six changes King James personally made because he didn’t like what it said have since been edited.
      The KJV used what was referred to in a 1633 Greek edition as the complete and widely held or “received” Greek text, largely the work of Erasmus who was trying to improve upon what he considered to be sloppy texts available in his day. It used the best and oldest Greek codexes available at the time. However, much of the book of Revelation was missing and so the textus receptus relied on back translations or reverse translations of the Latin Vulgate, an authoritative Latin translation and centuries old at the time. However, the oldest Greek sources at the time were comparatively not very old (“watered down” by today’s standards). They were fresh, however, by virtue of copies brought back to Europe from the holy land during the crusades.
      In the centuries since the KJV, archeology has come a long way, and many, much older Greek copies have been found, hence the excitement over such major finds as the Dead Sea scrolls. (We have since found ancient Greek pieces of Revelation.) And regardless of what the KJV worshipers tell you, we have since learned that the textus receptus was not the best and most accurate version. For example, Mark 16:9-20 are missing from Greek codexes much older than the textus recuptus and the NKJV notes this fact.
      How a Greek manuscript gets “watered down” over time is not that hard to understand. As copies are made (even today – when was the last time you saw a Bible for sale that was not annotated or footnoted) the copier makes a note in the margin. The next copier, copies the note in the margin. The next copier copies the note but inserts or appends it into or at the end of the text. A hundred years later, the next copier doesn’t realize it was an added note and not a part of what the original author wrote. (If we had the originals there would be no problem??? Hmmmm,,, why would God not allow the originals to survive,,, could it be that He knew we would start worshiping them???)
      To add further confusion today, some “translations” are not translations and don’t claim to be. The NIV, for example, claims to be a “sense translation”, not a literal translation. It seems that every worshiper of the KJV delights in finding comparisons to the NIV, though. The purpose of the NIV, right or wrong, was to come up with a doctrinally sound, but easy to read Bible. It was a monumental task because the Bible is just not easy to understand in some places. Another example with a similar purpose is the Living Bible. It clearly says it is a paraphrase, not a translation. It is more correctly thought of as an elaborate parable about the Bible. People are people, and no two people are alike. The Holy Spirit, through the power of God has reached all kinds of people in all kinds of ways, even all kinds of Bibles. God can always do what he wants with what he has. He is God. He made us with just a pile of dust. Remember that, and never rely on any translation, no matter how accurate to understand the Bible. God said He would do that for us. While I think that most translations (KJV and NKJV being notable exceptions) woefully miss-translate 1Pet 3:7, I prayerfully meditate (as instructed) on the scripture to understand it. I also check out several translations and the original language, but for a required understanding that is not necessary. First read the passage in context. That might mean a paragraph, a chapter, or in the case of Romans, as many as 8 chapters. Ask God why. “Why did you say that? What does this mean for me? Where is the life and the hope? And by all means, don’t think you have to learn early 17th century proper English to understand the Bible.
      Everyone (including me) is dying to tell you what a particular passage of scripture means. In translation, those doing the work must settle on a meaning to translate. Sometimes (as in Ps 23:4, even the Jews argue about the translation) a word can be translated in more than one way. In some cases (Ps 23:4), the KJV translators compromised and threw in both meanings (one word – deep valley or deathly shadow, you decide). I have also found, that as I mature as a Christian, one passage can grow in meaning and take on meaning. That is the work of the Spirit of God. Use your Bible as an aide, but let Him be your ultimate translator (understanding the scriptural caveats that will keep you from going off the deep end (ex..JW’s).

  • dan

    Blessings

  • beccaj

    Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6 (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Revelation 22:18-19)

    If a person blatantly disobeys God and takes away from and or adds to His Word, whatever else the spirit is behind that, that spirit is not of God, and, you cannot trust what that person says. Whenever you encounter an individual or group of individuals that claim to have “advanced revelations” you’re dealing with cultishness; run away as fast as you can.

    • beccaj

      “a tenet of Ruckmanism to say that the King James translation is inerrant, that it contains no errors of any sort. If this tenet is proved false, then the whole logical base of Ruckmanism is in danger, and Ruckman knows it. That is why he goes to great lengths to prove that even typographical errors in various versions of the KJV are actually inerrant. His logic is so twisted, that it seems almost impossible that an intelligent man could employ it. But Ruckman does. For instance, Ruth 3: 15 was typeset incorrectly in one printing of the KJV, and corrected later. Ruckman actually defends both type settings as inerrant! But let him state this absurd position himself:

      “She went into the city” has been corrected from “He went into the city” (Ruth 3: 15), which constituted no error for both of them went into the city, which is perfectly apparent to anyone who can read two-syllable words. (The silly faculty members at Bob Jones and Lynchburg who emphasize this discrepancy(sic) simply fail to read the context of the passage.)”29

      The verse (Ruth 3: 15) refers to Ruth going into a city. But Ruckman must defend both type settings, including the incorrect reading, “He.” For if either typesetting is incorrect, Ruckman’s idea of the inerrancy of the KJV translation is undermined, and the basis of his entire theory rests on a sandy foundation. Ruckman is forced to the asinine position of claiming both type settings (“He” and “She”) as inerrant! In case you think I have misrepresented him, I quote this absurd idea from another of his books:

      “Our problem text today is from Ruth Chapter 3. This is one of the “last resorts” used by the Cult to prove a “contradiction” in the AV. The thinking behind this is that some editions of the AV had “SHE went into the city” while other said “HE went into the city”…Now the fact is, they BOTH “went into the city.” Observe Ruth 3: 16 – Ruth’s mother-in-law, Naomi, is IN THE CITY. Observe Ruth 4: 1 – Boaz had to go up into the “the gate.” EITHER READING WOULD HAVE BEEN THE TRUTH OF GOD WITHOUT CONTRADICTION.”30

      This quotation shows that Ruckman, in effect, does not believe in verbal inspiration (at least not in any traditional sense). The point isn’t whether “he” and “she” are interchangeable or not, the point is which word did God want?

      The Bible teaches verbal inspiration, that God gave the very words. In the temptation in the wilderness, Jesus confronted the devil. The record of this event is given in Matthew 4: 4:

      But he answered and said, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

      Either Jesus was right, or He was wrong. I am convinced that Jesus was correct, that the very words of the Bible were given by God. Ruckman does not believe this. He teaches that the King James Version can give two different words, and that both of them are correct. He does not believe that the correct word was given by God. Ruckman’s God speaks with a forked tongue. Ruckman’s God cannot be trusted the first time He speaks. Ruckman’s God may give a different word at a later time! I am afraid that this is a different God from the one I believe in! My Bible says, “Every word of God is pure” (Proverbs 30: 5).

      If you believe that God chose the exact words to put into the Bible that He wanted, then either the “he” or the “she” was in error, and Ruckman is wrong in saying that the KJV is inerrant. True, the KJV is highly accurate, but in no sense can we accept Ruckman’s absurd logic on Ruth 3: 15 and other passages and say that this translation is inerrant and infallible.”

      The Ruckman Conspiracy
      Dr. R. L. Hymer
      http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Books_V/ruckamnhymers2.htm

  • Cochise

    I see what you mean Dominic about how 1 Cor 1:21 NKJV differs from KJV and maybe some people start reading the Bible in Corinthians I started at the Gospels and by the time I got to Corinthians do you really think the difference in Scripture would make one think that the cross and resurrection is foolishness maybe an idiot but not me, many are called an few are chosen rearrange words in the Bible all they want I know exactly what it’s saying

  • I attend a Bible Study group weekly at my church. I thoroughly enjoy it, and have learned a lot. Years ago I had a NIV bible, and decided on the KJV. For me the KLV is a bit harder to read, as I do not speak in parables as the Lord Jesus Christ, or his teachers. I can say that I sometimes need to re-read a verse to fully understand, but that I believe is what the Lord wants us to do. The Bible is God’s word, and truth, and those who truly seek to find the meaning, will find GOD. The road to salvation is straight and narrow, and the gate at the end is hard to enter. When I listen to verses read from different bibles, and I follow along with the KJV, I see where the meaning is sometimes changed by the words that are omitted in other versions. I am not one to tell anyone what Bible they should be reading, nor tell one what to believe to be right. But I will say that I have read many different versions, and have yet to find one that compares to the KJV. Ones heart, and their relationship with our Father in Heaven is what really matters. What is important is that you know Jesus, but the really important fact is does he know you.

  • Clay

    I was just able to listen to the program. I’ve always known the KJV was special. I’ve used it for years. It’s the real Word of GOD. Everyone look at the scripture Psalms138:2 in the niv version and see the difference. So corrupted.

    • GiGI

      NIV: I will bow down toward your holy temple/and will praise your name/for your unfailing love and your faithfulness/for you have so exalted your solemn decree/that it surpasses your fame.
      KJV: I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

      It’s saying the same thing in different words. I must be missing what you’re seeing.

      • tiptopsaidhe

        AKJV Acts 18:18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow. 19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews. 20 When they desired him to tarry longer time with them, he consented not; 21 but bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.

        ESV 18:18 After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers[c] and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow. 19 And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there, but he himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. 20 When they asked him to stay for a longer period, he declined. 21 But on taking leave of them he said, “I will return to you if God wills,” and he set sail from Ephesus.

        NIV Acts 18:18 Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sisters and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchreae because of a vow he had taken. 19 They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila. He himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. 20 When they asked him to spend more time with them, he declined. 21 But as he left, he promised, “I will come back if it is God’s will.” Then he set sail from Ephesus. 22 When he landed at Caesarea, he went up to Jerusalem and greeted the church and then went down to Antioch.

        The KJV, in v.21 mentions that Pauls says he must keep the feast in Jerusalem as to why he couldn’t stay with them longer. In order for Paul’s nazarite vow to be fulfilled, and for him to not lose credibility with his Jewish audience who didn’t believe him that he was a disciple and had met Jesus, he only had a certain number of days to make it to the feast to make the proper offerings of his hair. The nazarite vow and the cutting of his hair at Cenchrea was Paul’s vow to them, and to us, that he was telling the truth. If he cut his hair, but didn’t burn it in the offering during the feast, his vow would be considered worthless and his testimony invalid. The other 2 versions I posted make no mention as to why he had to return to Jerusalem in a hurry. The ESV and the NASB leave it out altogether. Those who read any other version have no reason to believe that Paul’s testimony is real. It is a significant omission from the minority texts.

        Num 6:13 And this is the law of the Nazarite, when the days of his separation are fulfilled: he shall be brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:

        14 And he shall offer his offering unto the Lord, one he lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings,

        15 And a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, and wafers of unleavened bread anointed with oil, and their meat offering, and their drink offerings.

        16 And the priest shall bring them before the Lord, and shall offer his sin offering, and his burnt offering:

        17 And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread: the priest shall offer also his meat offering, and his drink offering.

        18 And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings.

        19 And the priest shall take the sodden shoulder of the ram, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them upon the hands of the Nazarite, after the hair of his separation is shaven:

        20 And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the Lord: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.

        21 This is the law of the Nazarite who hath vowed, and of his offering unto the Lord for his separation, beside that that his hand shall get: according to the vow which he vowed, so he must do after the law of his separation.

        • Picky

          Thank you for pointing out how corruptions became part of the KJV. First of all, the NIV is not a literal translation and does not claim to be. Read the preface: it claims to translate the sense of the original languages and not the words. Second, you have chosen for your example what is known in serious theological circles as a spurious passage. I can give you a list; such as the one in Mark that says anyone who follows Jesus will drink poison and handle venomous snakes, or the one in John 5 that talks about the crippled waiting for an angel to stir the waters in a pool so the first one in afterward would be healed.
          Where you never see examples drawn from the Old Testament because the Jews had a reverence for the text and considered it sacred. The Greeks making copies of short biographies and letters in the first century had no idea they were copying items that hundreds of years later would be canonized into scripture, thus there are thousands, yes thousands of variants in the New Testament. Most of these are spelling mistakes as computers and spell checkers had not been invented yet. But every now and then, someone copying a document felt compelled to add a word of explanation. Someone familiar with the Nazarite vows in this instance. Someone like you. Most of us would be satisfied when Paul said he wouldn’t stay. But not you, you knew what Paul was up to. So this scribe-in-the-know jots the explanation in the margin. Another scribe copies it in the margin later when another copy is wanted. He had to copy it by hand because copy machines and fax machines had not been invented yet either. Somewhere down the line of making copies through the ages, one bright scribe just adds it in with the rest of the text.
          Sound far fetched? Wishful thinking? A conspiracy to discredit the KJV? Hardly, Archaeology, along with the rest of the world, has come a long way in 400 years. More recent translations, including the NKJV, have notes explaining that these spurious passages are not found in the oldest manuscripts. That’s enough and satisfies most Christians, but not the worshipers of the KJV. You need to know more. Well, you see, the reason we know the process is because we found the copies without the spurious passages and we found the copies with the passages written in the margins.
          The Bible is the most researched, scrutinized, and validated book of any work of antiquity. Do you think that anyone other than a handful of people care if Homer misspelled something in the Illiad or the Odessy? Every letter in the Bible is scrutinized because we base our hopes and lives on its words. Archeologists are not the only ones who DEVOTE THEIR LIVES to knowing the certainties of scripture. Linguists, philanthropists, sociologists, historians, and countless others, passionately searching for the truth. And that’s just in English. The Bible is available in over 500 languages and partially translated in over 2000 more. The overwhelmingly vast majority of Christians cannot read English. It amazes me that a small cult of KJV worshipers has placed the translation on such a lofty pedestal as if God is somehow constrained by the King’s English, or there is some sort of conspiracy among Christians to discredit the only reliable translation, to their own demise. It makes no sense whatsoever to those with a sober mind.
          Jesus’ longest recorded prayer emphasized unity within His body. Yet, there are a frighteningly high number of those claiming to be a part of His body who seem to be looking for ways to bring distrust and division.
          The KJV is an excellent translation. It is not any more holy than any of the other (non-cult) translations. It is not the original, penned in the authors’ hands. It is one of the means God uses to communicate with us.
          There are certainly a lot more important matters to come together and be upset about than looking inward at each other critically about what Bible translation is being used.

  • k33j88

    I’ll stick to my 1599, Geneva Bible.

  • Clay

    K, I understand that, but if that was the one to use why did “God just let it go by the wayside” and not have that one that we would be discussing and being the most sold book in the world. I’d lined up the KJV to be put together by order of King James. Have you or anyone read the little paperback book on the story of the men God selected to bring together the Holy Scriptures?

  • Rivkah

    Zephaniah 3:9 Surely then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon
    the Name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.

    And I can tell you that’s not greek or latin. There is enough ancient evidence to show that it’s hebrew. You need to stop teaching falsely and leading others astray. The english, greek and latin translations have prostituted much of YAH’s Word. Period.

  • Ole Ingvar

    Every translation, what was made after 17xx year is corrupted.

  • Grammy G

    Lots of great discussion. I am not a scholar by any means, but seems the Holy Spirit, wisdom, knowledge and discernment are all being left out of the discussions. I am a KJV girl, but it too has its issues and when you look at who participated in writing it, you can see the influences throughout. This is where we must rely on the Holy Spirit to ensure we are teaching Truth. We can become very wise in our own eyes and make a cult out of something, even which version of the Bible should be used. Even better us when it can lead to dissenting and disagreements among The Church. Better to leave this to the Lord and pray for discernment, wisdom and knowledge.

  • LG

    The 1599 Geneva Bible is the one the Protestants used. They protested the King James bible and thats why we are called Protestants
    We PROTESTED THE CATHOLIC INFLUENCE

  • Emery

    You ask, Geoffrey, “do you have the words God wrote?” God “wrote” no words, He inspired them to be written. No translation is what God inspired to be written either. God didn’t inspire translations. And which King James 1611 do you refer to? No originals exsist, nor does the original manuscript of the 1611 KJV Bible. What you call the 1611 is a MUCH REVISED version of the 1611 KJV Bible. A dozen of them, in fact. The ORIGINAL had the apocrypha, and marginal notes REFERRING to the apocrypha. No KJV printed today has even the marginal notes. The KJV has undergone so many revisions, do you even know to which you refer? And what about the over 20,000 deliberately mistranslated words, eliminated words, and added fictitious texts in the current KJV 1611 Bible? ALL of the ancient 16,000 scriptural texts that exist today have the tetragrammaton for Jehovah, in it 7,212 times. The current KJV has it four. All the ancient texts have Gehenna, Hades, and Sheol in it, and the KJV has no occurrences of any of those words. No word for ghost existed in the first century, but the KJV has it. No word for cross existed in the ancient texts, but the KJV has it. No word for “damnation” existed in the first century in any language found in the ancient texts, but it’s in the KJV 11 times. Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century? If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English – a translation of a translation of a translation? Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles? (Dan 3:25 we have one “like the Son of God” instead of “like a son of God”, even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent “His angel” to deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion’s confession in Mt 27:54.) How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase “book of life” is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read “tree of life”? Would you contend that God waited until a king named “James” sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well of an “Epistle Dedicatory” that praises this king as “most dread Sovereign . . .Your Majesty’s Royal Person . . .” – IF the historical FACT was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life? [documentation – Antonia Fraser — “King James VI of Scotland, I of England” Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline Bingham — “The Making of a King” Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott — “James I” Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 || David H. Wilson — “King James VI & I” Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias] Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was “led by God in translating” even though he was an alcoholic that “drank his fill daily” throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine — “The Men Behind the KJV” Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]

    There are SO MANY PROBLEMS with believing that the KJV is even remotely accurate, that to make that claim, brings the claim maker into question as regards honesty and love for God. God’s word itself tells us to take in ACCURATE information about God, DAILY. How is one able to do so with such an incorrect translation, put together by alcoholics and homosexuals, who used a very, very flawed Textus Receptus, which was a translation, of a translation, of a translation. Geoffrey, you shouldn’t tell people things that simply are not true. Are you aware of how that makes YOU appear? Are you aware that when INFORMED people read your articles like this, they REALLY begin to question everything about you?

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Join Our FREE Subscription Service!

End times Bible prophecy news happens fast, add your email now to get our latest articles sent to your inbox in real-time.

Join 12,486 other subscribers

SUPPORT NTEB

24 hours a day, seven days per week, Now The End Begins keeps you informed of what's happening around the world as it relates to the end times and Bible prophecy. Your generous non-tax deductible contribution helps us to do that. Thank you in advance for your much-needed support.

CATEGORY SEARCH
FOLLOW NTEB