Verified answer

You are quite right, its pure hubris. Especially as they undoubtedly do not have knowledge of the ancient languages that would allow them to make the judgement anyway.

In fact, the oldest fragment of the New Testament dates to the first half of the second century and is housed at the John Rylands library in Manchester. Far from original.

I think that because the texts of the Bible were regarded with such value, that the copies are virtually the same as the originals. I mean, these were holy texts--the people making copies were going to do it as meticulously as possible.

I don't think the problem is what is closest to the original text, I think it's a question is which translation is closest to the original meaning and which understanding of the culture is closest to the what the culture at the time really was.

Recently, I was looking at Matt 19:3-9 about divorce. Some translations have it as "unless there is infiedelity" some have it as "unless it is unlawful". both these are interpreted from the same greek work (porniea? I think).

Well, this is a big deal. On the one hand, a person can get divorced if the spouse is fooling around--then God will dissolve the bond.

The other translation suggests that only if the marriage was illegal in the first place (incest was a common problem), then God would not have made the bond in the first place--but He will NOT dissolve a bond between a man and a woman because of the fooling around as above.

Well, we know they can't both be right. Why is it so confusing.

The problem, as usual, is with us. we are imperfect and trying to understand what God is telling us in the Bible. There are so many of us with different ideas, and so many of those ideas seem logical--how will God tell us which way to go?

Apparently, God measures the KJV to be an accurate representation of His word... I say that simply because it has been the most prevalent Bible for the last several centuries...

If there was "another" that was closer to being more accurate, I believe God would have Made Certain that It was the bible we all know so well... rather than the KJV..

I do not think you can argue that point if you have any faith at all in God and understand that God's Will does Prevail...

With that in mind, I actually have 5 bibles... I like to read all of them... One may shed a little light on something in a way that had not occured to me otherwise... Yet, It is my KJV that I always use as a reference point to bounce the others off of.. There are many instances that Translations fail.. On a verse by verse basis, I mean, Not that the entire translation is flawed and useless...

Gee, I don't know, maybe because people have done extensive research and found out that the Bibles today are 99.99% accurate to the oldest texts that we have.

As far as measuring up, there are many different copies of OT books from ancient times, and even more from the NT, when you compare then all together, you can see which ones have the most similarities. Things that are the same in most or all of the texts would be considered authentic, whereas things that only appear in a few would be considered not part of the originals, etc. Don't worry about it, because many people love and many others hate the Bible, and it is the most scrutinized book in the world.

I have found the 1550 Stephens byzantine Greek is pretty good.........and the Hebrew old testament has a few differences like the name screech owl and unicorn plus heaps more ...it's really cool the difrent wordings open the bible up to a lot of mythology.

Question: "KJV Only movement? Is the King James Version the only Bible we should use?"

Answer: Many people have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. GotQuestions.org does not want to limit its ministry to those of the "KJV Only" persuasion. Nor do we want to limit ourselves to those who prefer the NIV, NAS, NKJV, etc.

The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the New Testament authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just at the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV as heretical just as they do the NIV, NAS, etc. Attempts have been made to "modernize" the language in the KJV, using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. An example of this is the KJV21 - http://www.kj21.com/ All the KJV21 does is update some of the archaic language of the KJV. Yet, it is rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus.

Perhaps the ultimate proof of this fact is that KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way. The KJV certainly does contain English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. Other than the KJV21, this has not been done, and the KJV21 definitely has not been accepted. Any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in accusations from KJV Only advocates of heresy and perversion of the Word of God. When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not the way they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. The same should be true of English speakers and readers. The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change.

Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every one contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Recommended Resource: The King James Only Controversy by James White.

Baloney...!!! "Christians who recommend particular Bible versions based on their closeness to “the originals”"… is not true...!!! it is based on their closeness of what they believe!!! There are no 2 manuscripts of any early writings that say the same thing! There were no Xerox machines then, so every copier wrote his own ideas on what he was copying to "bring it closer to the original" if you will...!

edit: I read some of the Early Church Fathers that one of them had a few copies of the Gospel of Matthew (about 4?), but none agree with each other 100 %..!

Here is an interesting link.

Related topic but not really useful as an answer to the specifics of your question.

I go based off those who have subjected their lives to studying "the originals" and making translations. Of course there are going to be mis-translation with whatever version you have but it gets the main points acrossed. (I read NIV, just because it's easy for me to understand and any questions I have with translation, I take it up with my pastor).

my buddy bill has a first edition :P