Is the KJV's rendering the most accurate in these ten passages?

[Logos1560]

View attachment 14190

Waldenses Bible translations listed in the chart would differ significantly with the KJV.

Baptist historian Thomas Armitage wrote that “he [Peter Waldo] employed Stephen of Ansa and Bernard Ydross to translate the Gospels from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome into the Romance dialect for the common people, as well as the most inspiring passages from the Christian Fathers” (History of the Baptists, I, p. 295). Andrea Ferrari wrote that “Waldo of Lyons paid some clergy to translate parts of the Bible from the Vulgate” (Diodati’s Doctrine, pp. 71-72). Paul Tice confirmed that Waldo “enlisted two clerics to translate various parts of the Bible, including the four Gospels, into the native Provencal language” (History of the Waldenses, p. vi). H. J. Warner maintained that the base for this translation was “for the most part the Vulgate of Jerome” (Albigensian, II, p. 222). Warner noted that Stephen de Ansa, a [Roman Catholic] priest, translated some books of the Bible into the Romance tongue while another priest Bernard Udros wrote his translating down for Peter Waldo (p. 221). Glenn Conjurske affirmed that “the medieval Waldensian version in the old Romance language [was] translated from the Vulgate” (Olde Paths, July, 1997, p. 160). KJV-only author Ken Johnson wrote that “we openly grant this” [“the fact Waldo used the Vulgate as the basis of his translation”] (Real Truth, p. 21).

Deanesly wrote that “the earliest existent Waldensian texts, Provencal, Catalan and Italian, were founded on a Latin Bible, the use of which prevailed widely in the Visigothic kingdom of Narbonne, up to the thirteenth century” and that this Latin Bible “is characterized by a set of peculiar readings, amounting to over thirty, in the Acts of the Apostles” and these same readings appear in “the early Provencal, Catalan and Italian Bible” and “in the Tepl manuscript” (Lollard Bible, pp. 65-66). Deanesly referred to this Latin Bible as “the Visigothic Vulgate” and indicated that it was later superseded by the Paris Vulgate (p. 66). James Roper maintained that the two Provencal versions “are derived from the Latin text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, and hence in Acts contain many ‘Western’ readings of old Latin origin” (Jackson, Beginnings, III, p. cxxxviii). Roper added: “The translators of these texts merely used the text of Languadoc current in their own day and locality, which happened (through contiguity to Spain) to be widely mixed with Old Latin readings” (p. cxxxviii). Referring to Codex Teplensis and the Freiberg manuscript, Roper wrote: “The peculiar readings of all these texts in Acts, often ‘Western’ go back (partly at least through a Provencal version) to the mixed Vulgate text of Languadoc of the thirteenth century, which is adequately known from Latin MSS” (pp. cxxxix-cxl). Roper asserted: “A translation of the New Testament into Italian was made, probably in the thirteenth century, from a Latin text like that of Languadoc, and under the influence of the Provencal New Testament. It includes, like those texts, some ’Western’ readings in Acts” (p. cxlii). Since Languadoc or Languedoc was the name of a region of southern France, especially the area between the Pyrenees and Loire River, and since Narbonne was a city in southern France in the same region and it was also the name of a province or kingdom in this area, both authors seem to have been referring to the same basic region. For a period of time, this area was not part of the country of France. The Catalan, Provencal, and Piedmontese dialects are considered to be dialects of the Romaunt language, the vernacular language of the South of Europe before the French, Spanish, and Italian languages were completely formed. The above evidence indicates that the mentioned Waldensian translations were made from an edition of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate that was mixed with some Old Latin readings, especially in the book of Acts. William Gilly had the Romanunt Version of the Gospel of John printed in 1848. L. Cledat had the N. T. as translated into Provencal printed in 1887 (Warner, p. 68).

Glenn Conjurske cited Herman Haupt as maintaining that “the old Romance, or Provencal, Waldensian version invariably reads Filh de la vergena (‘Son of the virgin’) instead of ‘Son of man’--except only in Hebrews 2:6, where (of course) it has filh de l’ome, ‘son of man’,” and Conjurske noted that he verified Haupt’s claim (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 137). H. J. Warner observed that “in St. John 1, the Romance version had ‘The Son was in the beginning,‘ and in verse 51 ‘The Son of the Virgin’ for ‘the Son of Man,‘ and so throughout all the Dublin, Zurich, Grenoble and Paris MSS. in every corresponding place” (Albigensian, II, pp. 223-224). William Gilly maintained that “wherever the words, Filius Hominis (Son of Man), occur in the Vulgate, they are translated Filh de la Vergena (Son of the Virgin), throughout the whole of this Version of the New Testament” (Romanunt Version, p. xliii).

James Todd described a Waldensian manuscript preserved at Dublin that has the New Testament with the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Cantica, Wisdom, and Ecclelsiasticus in the Romance dialect (Books of the Vaudois, p. 1). Todd noted that its Gospel of Matthew includes “the prologue of St. Jerome.” Todd observed: “No intimation of the apocryphal or uncanonical character of the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus occurs in the MS” (Ibid.). In an appendix of Todd’s book, Henry Bradshaw described some Waldensian manuscripts preserved at Cambridge, noting that Morland Manuscript A includes “a translation of Genesis 1-10 from the Vulgate” (p. 216). Bradshaw noted that Morland Manuscript C included a translation of Job chapters 1-3 and 42 from the Vulgate and “a translation of the whole book of Tobit from the Vulgate” (pp. 215-216).

Glenn Conjurske observed that the “Codex Teplenis is a fourteenth-century manuscript, which has never been modified at all, but exists today just as it did in the fourteenth century, and just as it was written by the scribes who wrote it” (Olde Paths, June, 1996, p. 138). Glenn Conjurske pointed out that Codex Teplensis included the Epistle Czun Laodiern, “to the Laodicens” (p. 133). He noted that this manuscript included a list of Scripture portions to be read on certain holy days and saints’ days and at the end included a short treatise on “the seven sacraments” (pp. 133-134). Out of the eighty-two places where the N. T. has “son of man,” Conjurske pointed out that “the Tepl manuscript reads ’son of man’ only seven times, all the rest having ’son of the virgin’” [sun der maid or meid or another spelling variation] (p. 137; also Oct., 1996 issue, p. 240). He affirmed that the “Teplensis itself reads heilikeit, that is, ’sacrament’” at several verses (Eph. 1:9, 3:3, 3:9, 5:32; 1 Tim. 3:16) (p. 139). Conjuske concluded that “it is an indubitable fact that the version contained in Codex Teplensis closely follows the Latin Vulgate and differs in a myriad of places from the Textus Receptus and the King James Version” (pp. 139-140). According to J. T. Hatfield‘s examination of this text, some other example differences include that the Tepl has “Jesus” at Acts 9:20 where the KJV has “Christ,” “his name” at Acts 22:16 where the KJV has “name of the Lord,” “Lord God” at Revelation 1:8 where the KJV has “Lord,” and “Jesus” at Revelation 22:17 where the KJV has “Jesus Christ.”

 

[Logos1560]

View attachment 14190

Verified facts from the Bibles on the modified chart by Shawn Brasseaux posted by Alan Dale Gross, on the lists by KJV-only authors in their pure stream of Bibles or good line of Bibles or good tree of Bibles would refute the KJV-only claims and conclusions that KJV-only advocates draw from them and would expose the KJV-only use of double standards and KJV-only apples and oranges comparisons. It seems that KJV-only advocates are uninformed or misinformed concerning many of the actual Bibles that they list on their pure stream or good line of Bibles. KJV-only advocates appeal to Bibles on their pure stream that would contradict their own inconsistent, unproven KJV-only conclusion.

KJV-only advocates list the Syriac Peshitta on their pure streams of Bibles, but they ignore or omit the English translations of the Peshitta such as 1851 Murdock's English New Testament, the 1933 Lamsa Bible, the 2018 English translation by Glenn David Bauscher, and the 2020 Peshitta English NT edited by George Kiraz. They do not include English Bible translations of the Syriac Peshitta on their pure streams of Bibles perhaps because facts from them would refute their KJV-only conclusion. English Bible translations of the old Syriac Peshitta would provide actual facts that are problems for inconsistent, erroneous KJV-only reasoning.

In the second appendix of a reprint of Murdock's translation of the Peshitta, Isaac Hall stated that the Peshitta "ranks in merit with our English version, or with the German of Luther, for happy, close, and idiomatic rendering" (p. 491). Terry Falla wrote: "Though given in printed editions, these passages [Luke 22:17-18, John 7:53-8:11] are wanting [lacking] in all MSS. of the Peshitta, and so far as now known, were not originally included in that version" (A Key to the Peshitta Gospels, pp. xix-xx). In the second appendix of a reprint of Murdock's translation, Isaac Hall maintained that none of the manuscripts of the Peshitta "contain the story of the adulteress, John 7:53 to 8:11, nor the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John 5:7, nor Luke 22:17, 18" (p. 495). Scrivener observed that the first printed edition (1555) of the Peshitta by Albert Widmanstadt was "apparently based on manuscript authority alone" and that it did not contain the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, Jude, Revelation, John 7:53-8:11, Luke 22:17-18, and doubtful clauses in Matthew 27:35, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29, and 1 John 5:7-8 (Plain Introduction, II, pp. 8-9). Scrivener again asserted that Acts 15:34 “is wanting [lacking] in the Peshitto (only that Tremellius and Gutbier between them thrust their own version into the text)” (Ibid., p. 373). Some later printed editions of the Peshitta added or interpolated some of the verses and clauses that are not found in any of the existing manuscripts of the Peshitta.

Bruce Metzger noted that in an examination of Matthew chapters 1-14, "Gwilliam found that the Peshitta agrees with the Textus Receptus 108 times and with codex Vaticanus (B) sixty-five times, while in 137 instances it differs from both, usually with the support of the Old Syriac and/or the Old Latin, though in thirty-one instances it stands alone" (Early Versions of the N.T., p. 61). Edward Andrews wrote: “The textual character of the Peshitta New Testament frequently aligns with the Alexandrian textual tradition preserved in early Greek witnesses such as P66 (125-150 C. E.) and P75 (175-225 C.E.), and later in Codex Vaticanus (300-330 C.E.)” (Syriac Bible, pp. 12-13). Edward Andrews asserted: “The Peshitta frequently corroborates early documentary readings preserved in Alexandrian witnesses, especially in places where later Byzantine copying expanded the text” (p. 93).

The Peshitta Syriac Bible has the different reading "Titus" at Acts 18:7. Because of a likeness of ending, a line of Greek is said to be omitted from some Greek manuscripts at John 6:11, and this copying error can be found in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Thus, at John 6:11 the Lamsa Bible, Glenn David Bauscher’s translation of the Peshitta, and George Kiraz’s Peshitta English NT have Jesus distributing the bread to the multitude rather than to the disciples who distribute it to the multitude. At Luke 8:12, Murdock’s New Testament, the Lamsa Bible, the Peshitta as translated by Glenn David Bauscher, and George Kiraz’s Peshitta English NT have "the enemy" where the KJV has "the devil." Bob Ross cited John Gill as noting: "The Syriac version here [John 1:18] renders it, 'the only begotten God'" (Trinity and the Eternal Sonship of Christ, p. 257). The Lamsa Bible has "firstborn of God" at John 1:18 while Murdock's translation and Bauscher’s translation of the Syriac have "the only begotten God." Murdock, Lamsa, Bauscher, and Kiraz have "Isaiah the prophet" at Mark 1:2 instead of “the prophets.” At John 1:28, Murdock, Lamsa, Bauscher, and Kiraz have “Bethany” instead of “Bethabara.” Murdock and Kiraz have “a certain Jew,” Lamsa has “a Jew,” and Bauscher has “a certain Judean” instead of “the Jews” at John 3:25. Murdock’s has “Joseph of Ramath” at John 19:38 instead of “Joseph of Arimathaea.” At Matthew 11:19, Lamsa and Bauscher have “justified by its works” where the KJV has “justified of her children.” At Luke 7:35, Lamsa and Bauscher have “justified by all its works” where the KJV has “justified by all her children.” Murdock’s, Lamsa, and Kiraz’s have “gospel of God” at Acts 12:24 where the KJV has “word of God.” Murdock’s, Lamsa, and Kiraz’s have “Barnabas” at Acts 13:13 where the KJV has “his company.” Murdock’s, Lamsa’s, and Bauscher’s translations of the Peshitta have “the day of our Lord” instead of “the Lord’s supper” at 1 Corinthians 11:20. Murdock’s has “Cephas” instead of “Peter” at Galatians 1:18. Instead of “bishops” at Philippians 1:1, Murdock, Lamsa, and Bauscher have “elders.” At Revelation 1:8, Murdock, Lamsa, and Kiraz have “the Lord God” where the KJV has “the Lord.” Murdock has “O Lord our God, the Holy,” Lamsa has “O our Holy Lord and God,” and Bauscher has “Our Lord and Our God” at Revelation 4:11 where the KJV has “O Lord.” Murdock, Lamsa, Bauscher, and Kiraz have "eagle" at Revelation 8:13 instead of "angel." At Revelation 14:4, Murdock and Lamsa have “redeemed by Jesus” where the KJV has “redeemed.” These four English translations of the Peshitta Syriac Bible have “tree of life” instead of “book of life” at Revelation 22:19. Do Bradley and other KJV-only advocates accept these readings or renderings in the Peshitta as accurate and as being a direct link to the handwritten documents of the apostles?

Along with other differences, there are also several other omissions besides the whole verses listed earlier and some additions in the Peshitta when compared to the KJV. At Matthew 27:9, Murdock’s, Lamsa’s, and Bauscher’s translations omit “Jeremy.” As translated into English, the Peshitta does not have "God" at Mark 12:32, and it does not have the last half of Matthew 27:35. Two phrases [“by them of old time”] are omitted at Matthew 5:27. At Matthew 25:13, a clause [“wherein the Son of man cometh”] is omitted. Another clause [“as they went to tell his disciples”] is missing at Matthew 28:9. Several words [“into the fire that never shall be quenched”] are omitted at Mark 9:45. At Mark 11:20, Murdock’s and Lamsa omitted two phrases [“in the name of the Lord“]. The first half of Acts 9:6 is omitted. At Acts 28:16, several words [“delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard”] are omitted. One commandment [“thou shalt not bear false witness”] is omitted at Romans 13:9. At Colossians 1:14, a phrase “through his blood”] is not found. Several words [“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last”] are missing at Revelation 1:11. The clause “which are in Asia” is also omitted at Revelation 1:11. The phrase “unto me” or “to me” after “saying” at Revelation 1:17 is not found in the Peshitta.

In some verses, English translations of the Peshitta may have additional words such as “the river” at Matthew 3:6, “it is I; be not afraid“ or “do not be afraid“ at Luke 24:36, “in Hebrew“ at John 20:16, “over Egypt” at Acts 7:18, “surnamed Agrippa“ at Acts 12:1, “to Antioch“ at Acts 12:25, “of the Lord” at Acts 14:25, “of Jesus“ at Acts 16:7, “in him“ at Romans 3:22, “the son of Nun” at Hebrews 4:8, and “a third part of the earth was burnt up” at Revelation 8:7. At Matthew 28:18, the Peshitta Syriac added the following words as translated in the Lamsa Bible: "just as my Father has sent me I am also sending you." At Acts 14:10, the Lamsa Bible has the phrases "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" which is not found there in the KJV. At Acts 14:10, the Peshitta English NT edited by George Kiraz has the phrases “in the name of our Lord Jesus the Messiah.”

At Matthew 10:8, the Lamsa Bible, Bauscher’s translation, and Peshitta English NT edited by George Kiraz do not have "raise the dead," which is also not found in the Greek Majority Text. Murdock’s has “raise the dead” in brackets with a marginal note that stated “omitted in most copies.” Dean Burgon believed that this clause "raise the dead" did not belong in the text since it is only found in one out of every twenty manuscripts (The Revision Revised, p. 108).

The Syriac Peshitta would differ far more with the KJV than the NKJV supposedly does, exposing KJV-only use of double standards in omitting the NKJV from their pure stream of Bibles.

 

[Logos1560]

In the interest of Preservation, we have the God-Honoring Name, God, used in the English text of His Bible.

Here is clear proof that Alan Dale Gross does not apply the same exact measures/standards consistently and justly. According to a consistent application of his accusation against the NKJV, the Church of England makers of the KJV could be said to have removed "the God-honoring name God" over 51 times where it was found in the 1568 edition of the Bishops' Bible in the book of Psalms alone.

The 1568 edition of the Bishops’ Bible has “God” at many verses [Ps. 1:6, 2:7, 3:1, 3:3, 5:1, 5:8, 5:12, 6:1, 6:4, 6:9, 7:8, 8:1, 9:9, 9:13, 10:1, 15:1, 17:1, 18:1, 20:1, 20:9, 21:1, 23:1, 23:6, 24:1, 24:3, 25:1, 26:1, 27:1, 28:1, 28:7, 29:2, 29:9, 30:1, 30:10, 31:1, 33:1, 34:22, 35:1, 35:9, 36:1, 36:5, 37:3, 37:4, 37:18, 38:1, 39:4, 40:1, 40:5, 40:9, 41:1, 41:3, 48:1, 54:1, 55:1, 56:1, 59:8, 71:1, 74:18, 79:5, 81:15, 86:1, 86:3, 87:1, 89:1, 91:2, 91:9, 95:1, 96:1, 97:1, 98:1, 98:3, 99:1 etc.] where the KJV removed it and replaced it with a different word.

Concerning the Bishops' Bible, Charles Butterworth asserted: "Among its peculiarities is the frequent use of 'God' where other versions have 'the Lord'" (Literary Lineage, p. 180).

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

For example, "(and this is even more telling) why does the ©1982 NKJV still contain difficult words?

Alighting; Allays; Armlets; Befalls; Belial; Bleat; Bray; Buffet; Burnished; Caldron; Carrion; Chalkstones; Circumspect; Citron; Dainties; Dandled; Daubed; Dappled; Enmity; Entrails; Fallow; Festal; Fowlers; Fuller; Furlongs; Jackdaw; Mammon; Matrix; Paramours; Parapet; Pilfering; Pinions; plaited; Potentate; Potsherd; Poultice; Prattler; Prow; Pyre; Quadrans; Raze; Retinue; Rivulets; Rogue; Satiate; Shards; Sistrums; Skiff; Supplanted; Tamarisk; Terebinth; Timbrel; Tresses; Verdure; Verity; Waifs; Wane; Wend; and woof.

And this '10 Problems with the KJV' guy found 10 Problems with the KJV? including some that are only Problems with his command of English.

Strong work.

Seems like you or this guy who found such catastrophizing incidents of 'Problems' in the King James Bible could have aimed your guns at some more real obsolete, bygone language from that list, found in the most conservative modern knock-off, the NKJV, THAT HAS AS ONE OF THE ONLY THINGS THAT HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED TO RECOMMEND IT WAS THAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SO MUCH EASIER TO READ FOR EVERYBODY, especially old ladies and 'the youth'. BUT, IT'S NOT, AT ALL.

This guy couldn't find any bigger problem than the natural time-value preserved Words of a Linguistic Masterpiece, with these goofy nothings he tries to say are problems, when he's never even read the chapter of Mark the Bible he's in.

If he had read Mark, he would have had to have gotten a bead on the serious issues with 6:11, 6:14, 6:16, 6:33, 6:44, & 6:51

Mark 6:11(KJV) And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

(1611 KJV) And whosoeuer shall not receiue you, nor heare you, when yee depart thence, shake off the dust vnder your feet, for a testimonie against them: Uerely I say vnto you, it shalbe more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of iudgement, then for that citie.

(1568 Bishops Bible) And whosoeuer shall not receaue you nor heare you, when ye depart thence, shake of the dust that is vnder your feet, for a witnesse vnto them: I say veryly vnto you, it shalbe easyer for the Sodomites and the Gomorrheans in the day of iudgement, then for that citie.

(1526 Tyndale) And whosoever shall not receave you nor heare you when ye departe thence shake of the duste that is vnder youre fete for a witnesse vnto them. I saye verely vnto you it shalbe easyer for Zodom and Gomor at the daye of iudgement then for that cite.

One typical modern days example: (NWT-Jehovah’s Witnesses) "And wherever a place will not receive YOU nor hear YOU, on going out from there shake off the dirt that is beneath YOUR feet for a witness to them.”
...

Mark 6:14; (KJV) And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.

(1611 KJV) And king Herod heard of him (for his name was spread abroad and hee said that Iohn the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mightie workes doe shew foorth themselues in him.

(1587 Geneva Bible) Then King Herod heard of him (for his name was made manifest) and sayd, Iohn Baptist is risen againe from the dead, and therefore great workes are wrought by him.

(1568 Bishops Bible) And king Herode hearde of hym for his name was spread abrode: And he sayde, Iohn Baptist is rysen agayne from the dead, and therefore myghtie workes do shewe foorth them selues in hym.

(1535 Coverdale Bible) And it came to kynge Herods eares (for his name was now knowne) and he sayde: Ihon the baptist is rysen agayne from the deed, and therfore are his dedes so mightie.

(NWT-Jehovah’s Witnesses) "Now King Herod heard of this, for the name of Jesus became well-known, and people were saying: “John the Baptizer has been raised up from the dead, and that is why the powerful works are operating in him.”
...

Mark 6:16; (KJV) But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.

(1611 KJV) But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is Iohn, whome I beheaded, he is risen from the dead.

(1587 Geneva Bible) So when Herod heard it, he said, It is Iohn whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.

(1526 Tyndale) But when Herode hearde of him he sayd: it is Iohn whom I beheded he is rysen from deeth agayne.

(NWT-Jehovah’s Witnesses) But when Herod heard it he began to say: “The John that I beheaded, this one has been raised up.”
...

Mark 6:33; (KJV) And the people saw them departing, and many knew him, and ran afoot thither out of all cities, and outwent them, and came together unto him.

(1611 KJV) And the people saw them departing, and many knew him, and ranne afoote thither out of all cities, and outwent them, and came together vnto him.

(1526 Tyndale) But the people spyed them when they departed: and many knewe him and ranne afote thyther out of all cities and cam thyther before them and came togedder vnto him.

(1382 Wycliffe) And thei sayn hem go awei, and many knewen, and thei wenten afoote fro alle citees, and runnen thidur, and camen bifor hem.

(NWT-Jehovah’s Witnesses) But people saw them going and many got to know it, and from all the cities they ran there together on foot and got ahead of them.
...

Mark 6:44; (KJV) And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men.

(1611 KJV) And they that did eate of the loaues, were about fiue thousand men.

(1587 Geneva Bible) And they that had eaten, were about fiue thousand men.

(1526 Tyndale) And they that ate were about fyve thousand men.

(NWT-Jehovah’s Witnesses) Furthermore, those who ate of the loaves were five thousand men.
...

Mark 6:51; (KJV) And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered.

(1611 KJV) And hee went vp vnto them into the ship, and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselues beyond measure, and wondered.

(1568 Bishops Bible) And he went vp vnto them into the shippe, and the wynde ceassed, and they were sore amased in themselues beyond measure, and marueyled.

(1526 Tyndale) And he went vp vnto them into the shippe and the wynde ceased and they were sore amased in them selves beyonde measure and marveyled.

(NWT-Jehovah’s Witnesses) Then he got up into the boat with them, and the wind abated. At this they were utterly amazed,

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

You inconsistently and unjustly attack modern English Bible translations for consulting the same multiple varying sources that were consulted in the making of the KJV.

Who told you that kind of foolishness?

Did somebody just spread that kind of junk for whatever reason and you read it, or you made this up, simply enough, so you could spread it?

Is this the first time this statement has ever been made? You're full of useless propaganda, either way.

And there were a lot more overwhelming reasons to be concerned about the modern versions, than they used different sources.

When you need to know if your version is worth a nickel, and has all the Preserved text, or not, or has been altered to change the meaning, then you can check your copy with various versions in the line of Preservation (see the lists of what Preserved Scriptures look like, above), with the King James version being highly recommended for such a monumental task.

Better check them against the King James version, so you know what God said.

The modern versions make no claim about being preserved, but just the opposite. They said the Received text was corrupted and needed them to reconstruct it. They left any claim of "contending for the faith once delivered to the saints", in a garbage can, if they could have ever claimed it, to fiddled with actually CHANGING THE WORD OF GOD. Otherwise, why was anyone going about "reconstructing" the Word of God and not using a text because they assumed it was corrupt, or decided to just say it was, when that has been proven false? Was that something Led of God?

State a verse that all that whole extremely lucrative fiasco of 'reconstruction' was based on.

The King James version is more in keeping with being one of the Fulfillments of God's Promises to Preserve His Word, if you think about it.

While opponents of the King James Bible, tell us that God didn't Preserve His Word anywhere and that He, therefore, is a Liar.

What a bunch of real garbage.

 

[Logos1560]

While opponents of the King James Bible, tell us that God didn't Preserve His Word anywhere and that He, therefore, is a Liar.

What a bunch of real garbage.

Your bearing false witness by throwing out bogus false accusations would be "real garbage." You disobey a clear command of God.

Believers who disagree with a modern, man-made KJV-only view are not at all telling you that God didn't preserve His words anywhere. It is inconsistent, erroneous KJV-only reasoning/teaching that in effect suggests that God failed to preserve the same exact original-language words of Scripture that proceeded from His mouth by inspiration to the prophets and apostles well enough for them to remain the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.

In the 1611 preface, Miles Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles."

Writing for all the translators, Miles Smith noted: “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” Miles Smith observed: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.”