That's what they would like us to believe. But when examining the major doctrinal differences they override most often with those two manuscripts. Keep in mind the vast majority of manuscripts, over 95% back up the King James Bible. Not modern versions. The difference made is from those two highly inaccurate, and highly edited manuscripts.

It is special because it brings together what was brought down through ages to us as Christians to have. The bibles in English went through a final refining process. The words of God were kept safe through the centuries being kept in Syriac, Latin etc. It took God to bring them all into a "bible", a completed book compiled for us today. God used the scriptures that were translated into the common tongue and kept alive by the common people so that satan could not extinguish it. God's ways are higher than our ways. The proof is in the pudding. Think of the great revival we had with the King James Bible. Think of how quickly the gospel then went out with the missionaries. If the King James Bible wasn't the standard, then why would every other bible compare itself to it.

From the first 1611 AV the apocryphal texts were never included as scripture or treated as such. Only two men were assigned to translate them, and they were not vigorously checked like the OT and NT were. They were also separated out by being placed between the two testaments to show that they were not accepted as scripture.

The authority of scripture is what stood out to me in my study. With phrases such as '..it is written..' being used not once, but numerous times.

I do freely admit that I'm coming from a position of trying to check that everything lines up with scripture. So when I was coming into the belief that I could trust the KJ Bible completely, I did do a study on what scripture is a number of times.

I like learning from the discussion, and I'm happy to discus specifics and increase my understanding. The main concern for me in discussing versions would be that of the use of Catholic underlying manuscripts that the King James Bible translators did not use. Does this aspect impact you at all? (Curious)

Well I don't understand at all how they can be when their two main underlying manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaticus disagree in more places than they actually agree. The 5000 odd manuscripts and fragments we have today underlying the King James Bible are in agreement. The manuscript evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the King James Bible vs one of the hundreds of different modern versions. And that's just liking at the manuscript evidence without examining the translation methods.

The geneve bible was good, but not as refined as the KJB. It was dropped and not kept in use like the KJB. If you compare the two they are easy to see that there is not major differences like there are between the modern versions.

James White doesn't believe he has inspired scripture.

I understand that we have manuscript fragments. We also have lot of manuscripts that are unreliable, disagreeing more than they agree. What we don't have is one complete and fully reliable Hebrew or Greek text. Even the King James translators had to use what they had in their day. The modern English bibles are not getting more accurate.

Thankyou for your comment. I'll have to come back and reply properly when I kick my children off the computer.

If God wrote through Paul, then they do apply to all scripture, because God knows the definition of holy scripture ahead of time. I think you either don't believe Paul's writings are holy scripture, or you are being inconsistent, or you don't believe that God wrote the whole Bible. I can agree that Paul wasn't writing directly about an unwritten NT. He did not know that his words would also become scripture, and that he was writing in the context of what he had. But because we now know his words are scripture, and indeed God's words, the same definition can be applied to both testaments. Because ultimately God said it and defined it for us.

There simply is no full perfect Greek and Hebrew text to do this with.

If inspired means that, then this means that God is not of plain speech. And that he wants us to be very confused and unable to find the truth.

I think that it is consistent with what God has done down through the ages, and with what the Bible tells us. Even Timothy who did not have the originals of the OT, still had 'holy scripture' in his day. 'And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.' (2 Timothy 3:15)

I have come to simply believe what I read. That the bible I hold and read says what God wants me to know. Otherwise he would have given me something else that I needed.

All scripture was penned by men. I believe that God through Paul penned Holy scriptures which we now know as the New Testament. Are you saying you only believe that the OT is scripture?

Sorry if some of my comments and quoting is a bit out of whack. On my phone and replying to a few things at once..,

The language used in the King James Bible is unique in the same way that the Greek of the NT was unique. The form is to accurately reflect what came before it. For example to keep the Hebraisms. We can trust it, because God maintained such a high level of accuracy for us today. The originals are of no use to us because we don't have them.

Scripture has been, and is, in many languages. I believe that the King James Bible is the bible for English speaking people today, and does not need to be improved upon or changed. Many foreign translations have been made directly from it. Just as English translations were made from other vernacular translations. Just as those who penned the New Testament writings spoke in the vernacular of their day, translating the Hebrew. Just as Acts 2 is a picture of God speaking in various languages. My point/belief is that in this time that we live we do have a complete and ordered book that has come down safely to us through time. Protected by God. Replacing the originals. We can't get back to the originals no matter what anyone may say. They simply don't exist. Even trying to use the Greek that we have, this has often been back translated from the English. And there are many different versions of it, the textus receptus. Then we need to use a man-made dictionary which lifts the words out of context and causes a whole new set of theological manipulation.

Do you believe that Jesus is God? 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:' (2 Timothy 3:16)

I've only just read the last link, but wanted to join in and add something... The thing with the Bereans were that they '..searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.' With everything that was happening at that time, they still had to go to the scriptures as their final authority and see if it all lined up. And this was at the time when Jesus had just been crucified and resurrected. They still had to check it out against scripture, even though there were signs also at the time, confirming the next part of God's plan. 'These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.' (Acts 17:11) We need teachers. But there is to be a balance. On the opposite end of the scale we have the Holy Ghost to teach us and lead us, and if we trust on him we will get to the truth quicker than through a man's knowledge and understanding. 'But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.' (1 John 2:27) And another negative verse about relying on man's teaching: 'For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;' (2 Timothy 4:3) Sometimes people desire to have teachers over them. This is because they want to feel good, and they want to choose what message they listen to, instead of seeking the truth no matter what it may be. My main point is, that we need balance. Men fail. And I have a hard time trusting in the scholars of today. Who knows where their personal relationship is at with the Lord at any given time. The disciples weren't chosen because they were learned men. In fact, it was the opposite case.

I only know that with the case of 'love', that if you compare the scriptural references for 'agape' and 'phileo' you will likely come to the conclusion that the words can be used synonymously. The words are used interchangeably in similar contexts. Nothing is lost or hidden in the meaning. Regarding the three different Greek words for 'worship', I'm left wondering what would be lost in the English translation that would create a need for us to be able to read it in the Greek for further insight. Why wouldn't the context in English be enough to communicate the idea accurately?

I agree with your last sentence. Yes, God has had his hand on the development of our languages. The bible gives examples of original scriptures being translated into a new language, but remaining holy scripture. God can translate his word.

English as a language can accurately translate both Hebrew and Greek because of its capabilities. It has many more words than the Greek language has. God let the original manuscripts wear out. But he still kept and protected his word down throughout the centuries. God knew what languages we would be speaking today. He also knew that English would become the universal language. Don't underestimate what he can do.