introducing Bible Protector

[bibleprotector]

BP, you’ve gone quite a few pages, you have done well in responding to the many reasons against, but I haven’t seen you give any reason for KJO. So what would you say are the ‘best’ reasons or evidence to accept the KJO belief?

I have given a few brief points, which I will reiterate or add:

1. It is consistent with the nature of God that He should have His Church with exact knowledge of His words (e.g. Deut. 32:4, Ps. 25:8, Matthew 16:18, John 8:32, 2 Cor. 4:6).

2. It follows that if God inspired infallible and inerrant words, that is, got them in the Earth, that He would also preserve them, and not allow them to be lost in time, but faithfully transmitted into the future (e.g. Psalm 12, Prov. 30:1-6, Isaiah 55:9-11, Matthew 7:24-27).

3. The Holy Ghost has the ministry of leading people to the truth, since His Word is truth (see John 17:17), it is a role for the Holy Ghost to bring people to have, acknowledge and possess His true Word (e.g. John 8:32, John 14:17, John 16:13, 1 John 2:20).

4. The same words that are in the Bible are supposed to be accessible and present, or else the commandants and statements of Scripture would be lies, i.e. you cannot obey merely a 98% reliable commandment (e.g. Matt. 4:4, Luke 4:4, John 12:48, Eph. 2:17, 1 Peter 1:23).

5. God has given the exact Word to be sought, and to give knowledge, and is powerful (e.g. Ps. 68:11, Proverbs 22:20, 21, Isaiah 34:16, 2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

6. The Church has the Word, and it is supposed to go forth by the great commission for the evangelisation to the nations (e.g. Matthew 28:19, 20, Acts 28:28, Rom. 16:26, 1 Tim. 3:15).

7. The Word by the Gospel is reaching all nations properly (e.g. Mark 13:10, Acts 1:8, Rom. 10:18, Col. 1:5, 6).

8. The Word by the Gospel is supposed to bring fruit because of the law of sowing and reaping, and by its outworking, (e.g. Mark 4:13–20, John 4:34-38, John 15:7, 8, 1 Cor. 3:7).

9. The Word of God is supposed to be a sword and powerful, therefore it must be of an exact, refined nature, sharp and ready, (e.g. Eph. 6:18, Heb 4:12, Rev, 1.16, Rev. 19:15).

10. The Word of God is specifically resisted (Isaiah 6:10, Amos 8:11, 12, Matt. 13:15, John 12:40, Acts 28:27).

11. The idea of varying or differing modern versions is confusion and double minded (e.g. Isa. 8:20, 1 Cor. 14:33, 2 Cor. 1:18, James 1:8).

12. Adding and taking away from Word, like what is done by the rational exercise of modern textual criticism, is forbidden (e.g. Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Rev. 22:18, 19).

13. The Word of God is to be lifted up and praised (e.g. Ps. 56:4, 10, Psalm 119:72, 127, 140, Acts 13:46-48).

14. The Word of God to fill the earth (e.g. Jer. 31:34, Hab. 2:14, Matt. 24:14, Col. 1:23).

15. The KJB by the English language to the Jews and the world (e.g. Isaiah 18:7, Isaiah 28:11, Zeph. 3:9, 10, Rev. 10).

You use a scripture, but again there is nothing that limits this to one specific translation, or even translations at all. It speaks of ‘all’ His works, we are His works also, are we perfect? Yet His way and his will that is perfect, ultimately bringing about his perfect work (nothing specifying a perfect English translation). I suppose it is a ‘carnal’ doctrine that says 2+2=4.

To rightly divide the Bible, you would need to investigate it consistently. When it says that God’s works, that includes giving His Word. Is His inspiration shoddy? Has He failed to get the exact knowledge of His words through time? Yet by your rejection of having a correct text, an accurate translation, you effectively say that God is not all-powerful, that His work is imperfect.

Somehow or other, you are disallowing (evidently through unbelief) that God’s own words through time are excluded from His statement about His works being perfect.

Your ‘reason’ here seems to be found in “there is to be” but based on what? What scripture foretells this event? (It sounds like your saying the reformation is the foundation, or the restoration of the Church)

Many Scriptures foretell of this event, I have listed many in the 15 points above.

“Surely English is the means of making known…” (Surely seems to be your argument)

Again, something is “surely” if it is the actual outworking of stated Scripture and extrapolated consistently based upon them. What I have suggested is in line with all the scripture verses given in the 15 points above, as taken in concert (i.e. not a “proof-texting” view).

Like we said, all the texts agree in almost full unity.

The issue is the differences, i.e. the lack of full unity. Instead of having the spiritual law of scattering and gathering, whereby God in time has the full unity, you uphold the doctrine of imperfection, dissidence and prohibit (by carnal reasoning) that there is or can be one true standard.

Modern textual criticism strives to reconstruct from the morass of disagreeing witnesses a text as close as possible to the original. It never achieves this goal because it is said by those men that it CANNOT ever be possible to succeed.

Even the most problematic translations (i.e. The NWT) cannot shake the truth of scripture, because the truth and doctrines are so interwoven into the reason, principles and story of the whole bible text.

The problem is that you are appealing to human reasoning rather than a doctrine of the Holy Ghost’s outworking by divine providence through the Church.

And the texts are all well supported by so many texts the truth cannot be shaken on any doctrine I have known.

The issue is not the 95% agreement, the issue is how do you resolve or recover the 5% disagreement.

There is certainty in the texts of all good translations

This “certainty” is not complete certainty, it is not full perfection and it is not total accuracy.

Second, one wonders what the standard of “good” is here. Is “good” a judgment based on the assumption that the majority of the texts are right a majority of the time?

The next problem is that you are talking about TRANSLATIONS (i.e. the meaning of words conveyed by English) whereas the TEXTUAL issue is to do with the actual form or content of words in the original languages.

How can you say that good translations convey a certainty of the texts, when 1. the texts differ to each other, say, up to 5%, and 2. the translations differ to each other as to what the words mean and how they are translated?

a perfect text did not keep the Pharisees and Sadducees from getting it wrong, the truth still has to be believed.

Again, this is two different concepts. It is possible to have the true Word but a wrong interpretation, that is certainly obvious. But, having differences in Bible versions and translations does effect, perhaps not important, big doctrines, but it does effect small details.

Now, in my view, there is still a big doctrine which is wrong in your view, and that is the absolute certainty of the knowledge of God’s actual true words. I say this, because it is possible to show the KJBO belief by using other translations and versions, i.e. that it is an objectively true doctrine. While one’s salvation is not based on the KJB, it does outwork as a major doctrine for the future, because the issue is concerning the possession of God’s very words.

You do not have to have a perfect text to know the truth, the Bibles ‘large body’ of supportive texts make it hard to twist a doctrine just because of typos and bad translations.

You again differ between general truth and specific full truth. Having a knowledge of the truth is not thwarted as you suggest, but for us to have a full knowledge of the exact, precise truth of the very words communicating the full will and commandments of God — that requires an exact Bible.

Shown "self consistent on every ground", Is that your reason? On what ground?

On the ground of the very words it contains. But the issue is willing heartedness, and how one interprets consistently with the nature of it. You have available to you the KJB, yet you are viewing it from the modernist perspective that all translations have errors, and that no text is exactly perfect. You are upholding the view that imperfection is enshrined, and that somehow God is overlooking it, and working out by His grace anyway. Now, the problem with that is that it makes God unjust, for while in past times He has outworked with the sufficiency of imperfect copies of the Scripture, yet you disallow that God should ever have His people having a proper copy and full knowledge.

There are many Scriptures to illustrate your view and where it really leads (e.g. the negative in Ps. 1:1, Rom. 6:1, 1 Cor. 3:18, Tim. 3:7).

[bibleprotector]

No one here has implied or is saying ‘any’ majority of texts. I meant the oldest, most reliable, and the best-supported texts (you must have known that is what I meant since I have already alluded to this, not just any old texts, texts that have archeological and defensible supportive resources, as God enforces the demands of witnesses also).

So, you quickly back-pedal from your view that the mass of extant texts are in substantial agreement to now the position of the modernistic critics that the few, oldest manuscripts in the original language which are the most divergent among themselves form the basis for what is called "reliable".

Secondly you you have created a falsehood: “…as soon as you put your method above the idea that God actually is providing the Word". We have never argued God has not provided his Word.

Actually you have, you have a view that says that God has nearly provided His Word. Because in practise, your early, few diverging scraps and copies are not a sufficient basis for having one exemplar text.

You have put your 'method' (KJVO) above the idea that we can trust God has preserved his Word, without having one specific version being given a divine stamp of perfection, to which we have no-evidence still.

Basically, you are arguing for ignorance of what God's words actually are. You are saying that God has preserved His Word even though you don't actually have a knowledge of what exactly it is.

You pour KJV into all belief that God has preserved his Word, we have no such specifics regarding the KJV, yet you continue to use this empty assumption. And then slander us as if we are unbelievers, or something.

While the Scripture does not say "King James Bible", neither does it say "modern textual criticism" or "go to the earliest manuscript copies" or any such thing.

Unless we approach what we have today with a believing, scripturally-consistent view, we will be as you are, with a divergent, unsettled amount of copies with which there might be a 2% uncertainty, as compared to having one final, set to be world-wide standard.

You continued your argument with this:

“This reduces God's truth to trawling through extant copies in the original languages, as if the sum of present knowledge will indicate a higher percentage of truth. This, while perhaps correct broadly, should not be the guiding principle of the matter. And by making this human exercise the way by which the nearest to possibly accurate can be obtained, it instantly assumes that there can never be a fully accurate copy, for that infinite unknowns exist, including the fact that we are restricted to available and incomplete copies, and that early copies are lost”

It is hard to discern your reasoning here, but none of it means anything if you cannot provide evidence that the KJV is ‘the’ one version above the others. If you cannot do this then we can continue to trust God has indeed preserved his words in these extant manuscripts, and that there is no reason why we cannot look through them to discern the originals.

So, you assume that having imperfection and not-quite truth is reality and your starting point. You claim that since I have not convinced you by Scriptures, that you will continue in your unbelief that there is no exact knowledge of God's very words. In other words, you are saying, "I do not know the truth, but I do know that it cannot be the KJB." How unjust and dishonest is that?

As long as you prohibit that you can actually know and have the truth itself, you will have the "truth" (i.e. lie) that you just have the body of incomplete, imperfect lack of standard.

We ‘are trying’ to get to the oldest originals (but age is not the only verification of the original, if it is shown to be a copy of a certain thread of copies).

Are you are Roman Catholic or something? The Bible says, "And the servant of the Lord must not strive" (2 Tim. 2:24a). It says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8, 9).

As long as you are trying to get to the oldest copies to attempt to get as close as possible to the truth, you are violating this commandment:

De 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
De 30:12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
De 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
De 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

You make research to be something of an evil human thing.

No, it is worldly wisdom which is misguided. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. 2:14).

As long as you believe in the modern, human approach of attempting to recover that which the Church apparently did not have for the past 1500 years, you are not going to get it.

And as long as you assume that human error and corruption prevail over the provision of God, you will not get it.

Rather, I think misapplying scripture to support a false position has a long history of evil. I do not see God denouncing study, wisdom, or searching out a matter. Rather God encourages research, gaining wisdom, demanding witness and evidence, I have never seen falsehood come about as a result of honest inquiry, witnesses, prophetic and biblical verification.

Worldly wisdom is entirely different from proper study of the Scripture, see 1 Cor. chapters 1, 2 and 3.

Again, why did God give us four Gospel accounts?

To study believingly. You seem to imply that such things are irreconcilable, prone to contradiction, manifest expressions of divergence.

(You also keep making us out as if we are trying to ruin or dispel belief in the KJV, this is false. We are saying we love it, but there is no reason to hold it 'above' all other good texts or translations, as if it has some stamp of approval by God)

The modern textual critical view you uphold does not have the "stamp of approval by God", because it says that the full truth is impossible to acquire, see 1 John 4:6.

[john6809]

Interesting understanding of Zephaniah 3:9 from Barnes:

Barnes' Notes on Zephaniah 3:9

For then - In the order of God's mercies. The deliverance from Babylon was the forerunner of that of the Gospel, which was its object. The spread of the Gospel then is spoken of in the connection of God's Providence and plan, and time is overlooked. Its blessings are spoken of, as "then" given when the earnest was given, and the people, from whom according to the flesh Christ was to be born, were placed anew in the land where He was to be born. Lap.: "The prophet springs, as is his wont, to Christ and the time of the new law." And in Christ, the End of the Law, the prophet ends.

I will turn - Contrary to what they had before, "to the people," literally, "peoples," the nations of the earth, "a pure language," literally, "a purified lip." It is a real conversion, as was said of Saul at the beginning 1 Samuel 10:9; "God" (literally) "turned to him another heart." Before the dispersion of Babel the world was "of one lip," but that, impure, for it was in rebellion against God. Now it shall be again of "one lip;" and that, "purified." The purity is of faith and of life, "that they way call upon the Name of the Lord," not as heretofore on idols, but that every tongue should confess the one true God, Father Son and Holy Spirit, in Whose Name they are baptized. This is purity of faith. To "call upon the Name of the Lord Jesus" Acts 22:16; Romans 10:13 is the very title of Christian worship; "all that called upon the Name" of Jesus, the very title of Christians Acts 9:14, Acts 9:21; 1 Corinthians 1:2. "To serve Him with one consent," literally, "with one shoulder," evenly, steadfastly, "not unequally yoked," but all with united strength, bearing Christ's "easy yoke" and "one another's burdens, fulfilling the law of Christ." This is purity of life. The fruit of the lips is the "sacrifice of praise" Hebrews 13:15.

God gave back one pure language, when, on the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit, the Author of purity, came down in fiery tongues upon the Apostles, teaching them and guiding them "into the whole truth" John 16:13, and to "speak to every one in his own tongue, wherein he was born, the wonderful works of God" Acts 2:8, Acts 2:11. Thenceforth there was to be a higher unity than that of outward language. For speech is not the outer sound, but the thoughts which it conveys and embodies. The inward thought is the soul of the words. The outward confusion of Babel was to hinder oneness in evil and a worse confusion. At Pentecost, the unity restored was oneness of soul and heart, wrought by One Spirit, whose gift is the one Faith and the one Hope of our calling, in the One Lord, in whom we are one, grafted into the one body, by our baptism Ephesians 4:3-6. The Church, then created, is the One Holy Universal Church diffused throughout all the world, everywhere with one rule of Faith, "the Faith once for all delivered unto the saints," confessing one God, the Trinity in Unity, and serving Him in the one law of the Gospel with one consent.

Christians, as Christians, speak the same language of Faith, and from all quarters of the world, one language of praise goes up to the One God and Father of all. : "God divided the tongues at Babel, lest, understanding one another, they should form a destructive unity. Through proud men tongues were divided; through humble Apostles tongues were gathered in one. The spirit of pride dispersed tongues; the Holy Spirit gathered tongues in one. For when the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples, they spake with the tongues of all, were understood by all; the dispersed tongues were gathered into one. So then, if they are yet angry and Gentiles, it is better for them to have their tongues divided. If they wish for one tongue, let them come to the Church, for in diversity of the tongues of the flesh, there is one tongue in the Faith of the heart." In whatever degree the oneness is impaired within the Church, while there is yet one faith of the creeds, He alone can restore it and 'turn to her a purified language,' who first gave it to those who waited for Him. Both praise and service are perfected above, where the Blessed, with one loud voice, 'shall cry, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the Throne and unto the Lamb; blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be unto our God forever and ever' Revelation 7:10, Revelation 7:12. And they who 'have come out of great tribulation and have washed their robes and made them white in the Blood of the Lamb," shall be 'before the Throne of God and serve Him day and night in His Temple' Revelation 7:14-15."

[jriccitelli]

You do realize that none of your verses confirm the KJV as the only or best translation.
It is 'your' reasoning that assumes this, I could say the NASB is a perfect translation (I am pretty confident in it), why can't I?
The KJV translators have already had to change over 2% to keep it current or accurate.
Although I do not believe sales prove a translations accuracy, you do know the NIV has been outselling the KJV for years, right?
The KJV came along at a good time, and it is a wonderful translation, but all language changes, and English will continue to develop and change. We have no reason to believe English is the way of the world, it hasn't in the past, and it isn't yet.
I disagreed with quite abit of your thinking, thats ok, but I was a bit nerved at your assumption that I backpedaled, I have written on this subject too many times, for someone to think I was saying otherwise, you continue to make us have to define everything to the nth degree because you put all reasoning into your category of carnal reason. Anyways your way wrong on that...

You do realize that the Gospels use different words in relating the same narratives, don't you?

[bibleprotector]

You do realize that none of your verses confirm the KJV as the only or best translation.

Why this dishonest smear that I am saying the KJB is the only translation. Clearly many translations exist. But the KJB has been recognised from the seventeenth century till now as the best translation. The point is that all the Scriptures I referred to, when taken in concert, build a case for the KJB in particular, rather than just for the Word of God in general.

I could say the NASB is a perfect translation (I am pretty confident in it), why can't I?

Saying something and saying the truth may be two different things. But, indeed you may think that the NASV is fairly accurate. Of course, you cannot assert, by your own philosophy, that it is perfect, because you cannot point to a perfect Bible anywhere, not even in Greek or Hebrew.

Although I do not believe sales prove a translations accuracy, you do know the NIV has been outselling the KJV for years, right?

That is a poor argument, since surely millions of wealth flowed to Imperial Rome, and millions of wealth into Roman Catholic coffers, so there is no reason to think that the NIV is superior for its sales.

The KJV came along at a good time, and it is a wonderful translation, but all language changes, and English will continue to develop and change. We have no reason to believe English is the way of the world, it hasn't in the past, and it isn't yet.

Your view basically has no role for God in it. You have an evolutionary view of languages, where they are just changing by various reasons, and nothing to do with God, and nothing to do with the possibility that God is able to communicate by the same language in the KJB as 1611.

I was a bit nerved at your assumption that I backpedaled

Yes, you want to stay on the low sandy ground of modern textual criticism, and not even sit on that fence of "Majority Text" studies.

you put all reasoning into your category of carnal reason.

No, I put your particular modern textual critical reasoning into the category of carnal, or worse, blasphemous, whereas there is plenty of reasoning which is quite fine. For example, pure sciences, etc.

You do realize that the Gospels use different words in relating the same narratives, don't you?

You have confused the separate individual inspiration of the Gospels with the multiplicity of diverging modern versions. Differences in the Gospels are God made and not erroneous, differences in modern versions are man made, and very erroneous.

[Paidion]

It is 'your' reasoning that assumes this, I could say the NASB is a perfect translation (I am pretty confident in it), why can't I?

Yeh. You're right, JR. I use the NASB myself as my prime Bible. This is the Bible I bring to church. Do you suppose that the NASB might be the "perfect Bible"?—so much easier to understand than 17th century English, and also based on more reliable manuscripts.

On the other hand, maybe "the perfect Bible" is the Orthodox Bible, which my wife uses. Its Old Testament is translated from the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek in the 3rd century B.C. The New Testament writers' quotes from the Old Testament, are similar and sometimes identical to the extant Septuagint, whereas these quotes differ substantially from the translations from the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and these differences are MANY. The King James translators used the Masoretic text to translate the Old Testament (as well as nearly all modern translators.) That's pretty far from "perfection". Uh-oh, there goes my NASB!

Here is a single example which proves that the King James Version, because it was translated from the Masoretic text type, is inconsistent. Joseph sent for his father Jacob and all of his kindred to come into Egypt. How many people was that?

And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph’s kindred was made known unto Pharaoh. Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls. So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers... (Act 7:13-15, King James Version)

According to the above passage in the King James Version, there were threescore and fifteen. Hmmm... Let's see. A score is 20. So threescore must be 60. Add 15 and you get 75.)

Now let's see how many there according to the Genesis account in the King James Bible:

And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten. (Genesis 46:27, King James Version)


Threescore and ten! That would be 70, wouldn't it? So which is true? Did 75 persons go down into Egypt, or 70 persons?

If the King James Bible is God's perfect word, does God want us to believe that 75 persons came down into Egypt, and also that 70 persons came down into Egypt? Are we to believe a contradiction?

Now let's look Genesis 46:27 from an English translation of the Septuagint:

and the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were nine souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls.

Ahhh. 75 souls! The same number as the passage in Acts! Consistency!

The fact is that there were two different forms of Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts of Old Testament which were found in Cave 4, contained a form of Hebrew which corresponds to the Septuagint translation, and the New Testament translations of passages quoted from the Old Testament. But the Masoretic text is the other Hebrew text type, and was found in the other caves.

My view is that the writers of the New Testament quoted from the text type found in Cave 4, and that this was similar or identical to the originals.

Clearly, the King James Version of the Old Testament, based on the Masoretic text, is in error, being inconsistent with the quotes from the Old Testament by the New Testament writers. And the example which I gave is not the only one. There are many others.

[SteveF]

The Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts of Old Testament which were found in Cave 4, contained a form of Hebrew which corresponds to the Septuagint translation,

I wasn't aware of that Paidion. Very interesting.

[jriccitelli]

'Why this dishonest smear that I am saying the KJB is the only translation. Clearly many translations exist. But the KJB has been recognized from the seventeenth century till now as the best translation. The point is that all the Scriptures I referred to, when taken in concert, build a case for the KJB in particular, rather than just for the Word of God in general' (BP)

When - taken in concert - God's word has long been established as the case for the Word of God in general, for 4000 years (or longer). You are the 'modern versionist', not us.
Again, recognized by 'who' as the best translation? You? I don't think the French, the Germans, the Greeks, etc. feel the same about the KJV.
Again I didn’t know I had to write out ‘every single’ word, you know what I meant by only or best translation – KJO – only, I don’t know, the only one that can be, er trusted (?), only what? I don’t know it is ‘your’ definition. The whole concept is from your camp, I would have never imagined I only had one translation I could believe in until KJO proponents came along, Before the KJO thing, I had trusted God had faithfully preserved his word with multiple witnesses.

I have just two questions today, since we both know there are other translations: What would you pick to be your second option for a Bible (second most accurate, or close to accurate, or, if you didn’t have a KJV available)?

And why?

[Candlepower]

Another KJV defect.

John 14:2 "In my Father's house are many mansions..."

Mansions? Really? No, not really. The KJV translators' choice of the word mansions was a less than perfect one. A KJV-Only defender might justify the mansions mistake this way:

"Well, the Greek word (monai) means dwelling places. And mansions are places where one might dwell, so mansions is not incorrect. But more importantly, dwelling places became wrong as soon as the KJV translators/interpreters wrote down the English word Mansions. 17th Century English trumps ancient Greek anytime. How do I know that? Because I believe it to be so, and believing so makes it so."

By the same logic, if the KJV writers had mistakenly translated monai as "submarines," I'm afraid some KJV-onlyists would be defending that. Absolutizing the 1611 KJV English translation is unwarranted, unnecessary and leads to confusion, at times.

The KJV-onlyists theorize that as the KJV translators penned their words, those words miraculously became the perfect Word of God. They believe that those words cannot be improved, and should never be criticized or changed. That theory, along with a very questionable eschatological view, drives them to conclude that the people of the world ought to be (and eventually will be) taught English so that they can read a Bible written in archaic (but perfect, they say) 17th Century English. That is a bizarre position. Plus it has zero Scriptural support. And what a huge waste of time and energy such an effort would involve. People don't need the KJV to get saved. They don't need the KJV to learn how to love Jesus and live for Him. God's Word works in every language. The world needs Jesus, and there are several excellent translations of the Bible (none perfect, including the KJV) available in a multitude of languages, by which He is revealing Himself to them.

All of this reminds me of a baseball game. In that game, the umpire's decision in a disputed call always stands. Even though a call can be proven to have been a bad one, the ref's call stands. Facts do not matter. The ref's call is correct based on the principle that...the ref determines what is correct. A bad call becomes the right call just because the ref says so. His decision is final! Like the law of the Medes and the Persians, it cannot be changed.

Getting back to mansions: how do KJV-onlyists know that mansions was the right word, even though it obviously was not? Well, it's because the KJV translators said so, that's why. And their decision was final. This is circular reasoning: "We know the KJV translators were right, because the KJV translators were right." Clearly, there is no reasonable justification for the use of the word, mansions. Dwelling places is correct. "Mansions" (a strange application of monai) is wrong and misleading.

KJV-Onlyists place their faith in the notion that God decreed that the KJV translators would produce an error-free Bible. There is no compelling Scriptural support for that notion.

P.S. I love the KJV!

[bibleprotector]

I have just two questions today, since we both know there are other translations: What would you pick to be your second option for a Bible (second most accurate, or close to accurate, or, if you didn’t have a KJV available)?

And why?

2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.