Adam Weishaupt
Aug 31 2008, 06:47 PM
I would see churches in Pensacola that had metal lettering attached to the building saying "Authorized 1611 King James Version Only ***** Church."
We would see them on the streets preaching when we were out in groups trying to share the gospel.
They had another gospel, sort of. They said that you are going to hell if you don't believe in the KJV only.
That doctrine is so devisive and demonic. It hinders people from understanding the word. It makes God look so dead, dry and religious. It polarizes its adherants. And it is just plain ignorant!
The King James Only Controversy by James White. That book is great. I read it when it was first published.
I doubt that KJV only people will be willing to seriously consider your very pertinent article there. They have the "hooks in their jaws" and they will surely surround the "heretics." Will they even actually read your article with any true attentiveness?
Levite-7
Aug 31 2008, 06:48 PM
hi~
neighbor, despite these words ~ no judgment shall be made against you by my hand. of a truth, the testimony of King James is filled with the glory of the Holy Ghost. i know this & what the LORD has shared, i shall accept in His holy name - AMEN.
~levite-7
voice
Aug 31 2008, 06:55 PM
QUOTE (Levite-7 @ Sep 1 2008, 08:48 AM)
hi~
neighbor, despite these words ~ no judgment shall be made against you by my hand. of a truth, the testimony of King James is filled with the glory of the Holy Ghost. i know this & what the LORD has shared, i shall accept in His holy name - AMEN.
~levite-7
Thanks and - Amen. But tell us more as to how the Lord shared this with you.
Psalm 119:41 May Your lovingkindnesses also come to me, O LORD, Your salvation according to Your
word
Psalm 119:58 I sought Your favor with all my heart; Be gracious to me according to Your
word.Psalm 119:76 O may Your lovingkindness comfort me, According to Your
word to Your servant.
Psalm 119:77 May Your compassion come to me that I may live, For Your
law is my delight
voice
Aug 31 2008, 07:01 PM
QUOTE (whirlwind @ Sep 1 2008, 08:52 AM)
QUOTE (Levite-7 @ Aug 31 2008, 06:48 PM)
hi~
neighbor, despite these words ~ no judgment shall be made against you by my hand. of a truth, the testimony of King James is filled with the glory of the Holy Ghost. i know this & what the LORD has shared, i shall accept in His holy name - AMEN.
~levite-7
I'm a strong King James advocate too. The one I use is the Companion Bible, which is a standard (not new and improved) King James with commentary by E.W. Bullinger. He corrects the errors made in translation from the manuscripts.
E W Bullinger
(1837-1913) Ethelbert William Bullinger was born on December 15 in Canterbury, England. He was a direct descendent of the great Swiss Reformer Johann Heinrich Bullinger, a covenant theologian, who succeeded Zwingli in Zurich in December of 1531. E W Bullinger was educated at King's College, London. He was a recognized scholar in the field of biblical languages. The Archbishop of Canterbury granted him an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree in 1881 in recognition of his biblical scholarship.
Some of E W Bullinger's best known works are The Companion Bible, Number in Scripture, Word Studies on the Holy Spirit, The Witness of the Stars, The Book of Job, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, Great Cloud of Witnesses, The Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testaments, How To Enjoy the Bible and Commentary On Revelation. Dr. E W Bullinger believed in and taught the pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture. He is also considered an ultra-dispensationalist because he taught that the gospels and Acts were under the dispensation of law, with the church actually beginning at Paul's ministry after Acts 28:28. E W Bullinger died on June 6, 1913, in London, England, leaving behind a wonderful legacy of works to help us in the study of God's Word.
Companion Bibles 
The Companion Bible 
by Ethelbert W. Bullinger 
Companion Bible - Kregel Publications - 0825422884 The Companion Bible is a unique King James Version Bible because of its wide margin. It is intended to be a companion to the text; and the whole is designed as the companion to all readers of the Bible. Also E.W. Bullinger has outlined the entire Bible as to subject and object so that the reader may follow with out any loss. Also there are 198 Appendixes to help the reader understand many things that an English speaking person from the twenty-first century might not other wise have available to them. We highly recommend this work as a Study Bible.
Yes, WW, it is an excellent resource Bible ... what led you to use it (did you always use it, or start out with the basic KJV and were in need of 'clarification'?)
Levite-7
Aug 31 2008, 07:42 PM
QUOTE (Voice @ Aug 31 2008, 05:55 PM)
Thanks and - Amen. But tell us more as to how the Lord shared this with you.
hi~
the LORD has revealed this in several ways, by prayer & more-so by leading me to the Word of His testimony. it is well known that the LORD has plan to move His word to the gentiles, for the invitation to the great marriage that the descendants of the children of Israel had willingly despised. the dominant language that commands the present day is English.......the LORD knew this, even before ~ so He planned for these events accordingly.
ask yourself, is the LORD perfect? if you say yes, then it is logical to say that to be perfect need only to have anything done once, & only once. the LORD moved through the men of King James' day & brought forth a Holy Bible for all the English speaking peoples of the earth. if He is perfect, & i shall advocate that He is a thousand times over, then that Holy Bible - version of 1611, is the only one we shall ever need. the rest that came after, is vanity. this is truth, men's pride in thinking they know more than the LORD shows in the later versions & for some - like the NIV & NASB in example - are wholly done by children of belial, who advocate change, all the while worshipping the devil in the secret chamber.
however, they that walk in the LORD are led by Him ~ sooner, or later before the promised time, they that are chosen will come to this realization that i speak this day; but until then, a Saint's path is God's alone.
but know this, for myself - i will never touch that which came after - there is no need, for the LORD in heaven is perfect.
~levite-7
Paula
Aug 31 2008, 07:42 PM
I grew up reading and memorizing from the KJ. It is both beautiful and terrible.
Beautiful in its lyrical qualities and terrible in its antiquity.
Grow UP!
If you are going to be so anal about the translation, then learn Hebrew and Koine Greek!
To believe that the KJ is the ONLY Holy Spirit inspired translation is to be racist and deluded.
Does the Holy Spirit then expect every non-English speaking person in the world to first learn English or Hebrew and Greek in order to read 'Holy Spirit inspired' versions of God's word? Get Real!
I heard a story long ago, wether it is apocryphal or not is unknown, about an illiterate preacher who would close himself in and pray until God would give him(the pastor) his (God's) word for the congregation. On Sunday am, the pastor would say turn to such and such book and verse and then proceed to expound upon the meaning of the word, He always had it 100%
correct.
So, is this story true? I don't know, but I do know that God said that his word would not return VOID.
I do know that the Holy Spirit is able to interpret his word to our hearts no matter how the translation affects its true intent.
In my life, every time that a passage bothers me with doubt, I pray and the Holy Spirit give me understanding.
I think that maybe we should spend more time on our knees praying for understanding of the word than on the keyboard
debating its translations!
IHS
Paula
Adam Weishaupt
Aug 31 2008, 07:52 PM
QUOTE (Voice @ Aug 31 2008, 07:24 PM)
Hopefully (hope floats?)
A question is - why does a KJV onlyist actually hold to that position? Is it fear of other versions? A special 'anointing' on the KJV? Fear of Divine retribution?
Tradition (almost Pharisaic?) ?
Well, it does affirm their spirituality.
It can make them feel to be the specially "enlightened" ones.
It can make them feel like they are on the inside track with God.
It can make them feel that everybody else is wrong. This is a psychological control mechanism. Since it is harder to deal with the challenges of various diverse beliefs and vivers translations of the Bible in the church, it is attractive to find a doctrine that paints broad stokes of demonic deception over almost the entire church.
You get the idea.
Just keep in mind that "where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom."
I doubt that KJV only people will be willing to seriously consider your very pertinent article there. They have the "hooks in their jaws" and they will surely surround the "heretics." Will they even actually read your article with any true attentiveness?
In my defense, I am being paid to sit at this keyboard all day.
researcher
Aug 31 2008, 07:58 PM
QUOTE (Paula @ Aug 31 2008, 05:42 PM)
I grew up reading and memorizing from the KJ. It is both beautiful and terrible.
Beautiful in its lyrical qualities and terrible in its antiquity.
Grow UP!
If you are going to be so anal about the translation, then learn Hebrew and Koine Greek!
To believe that the KJ is the ONLY Holy Spirit inspired translation is to be racist and deluded.
Does the Holy Spirit then expect every non-English speaking person in the world to first learn English or Hebrew and Greek in order to read 'Holy Spirit inspired' versions of God's word? Get Real!
I heard a story long ago, wether it is apocryphal or not is unknown, about an illiterate preacher who would close himself in and pray until God would give him(the pastor) his (God's) word for the congregation. On Sunday am, the pastor would say turn to such and such book and verse and then proceed to expound upon the meaning of the word, He always had it 100%
correct.
So, is this story true? I don't know, but I do know that God said that his word would not return VOID.
I do know that the Holy Spirit is able to interpret his word to our hearts no matter how the translation affects its true intent.
In my life, every time that a passage bothers me with doubt, I pray and the Holy Spirit give me understanding.
I think that maybe we should spend more time on our knees praying for understanding of the word than on the keyboard
debating its translations!
IHS
Paula
Well put Paula.
BFSmith
Aug 31 2008, 08:39 PM
QUOTE (Here Am I @ Aug 31 2008, 09:08 PM)
It's not that we are debating the many translations, but we are attempting to gain understanding of the meaning of a word or phrase from the original Greek or Hebrew manuscripts. This is honorable in the Lord's sight... as we seek to "study to shew thyself approved unto God... rightly dividing the word of truth." (2Timothy 2:15)
Yes it is, however I also believe that God can and do reveal His truth to us via His Spirit, as long as we are seeking to feed on His words and pass on what we have learnt from what He has shown us. Some spiritual truth though written on paper the reality of what God is doing, words is not adequate because human langue cannot always fully explain spiritual reality
in other words sometimes we can understand a spiritual truism but cannot really explain it to others the way we might understand it.
Adam Weishaupt
Aug 31 2008, 08:59 PM
Questions for "KJV only" advocates:
Some questions by Steve Rudd, who compiled the remaining questions from others.
Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.
What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.
Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?
If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!
If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?
Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."?
When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?
If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?
In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?
Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV?
Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV?
If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible?
Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't?
Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation)
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 do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "phileo" love words.)
Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn't God have inspired this as well?
Why would God inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God's "mate selection manual." Also, Isa 22 "He prophesieth Shebna's deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution" This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the day.)
Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"?
Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired translation"? (Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition)
Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV, is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God?
Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is?
If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)
Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?
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"?
How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are not disputing the doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last half of this verse)
How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?
Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?
Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"?
Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English?
Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"?
Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16]
WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?
Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?
Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed?
Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.]
Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?
Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?
Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?
What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist].
If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604?
Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely infallible?
If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23]
If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement?
Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired "scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore reason thus "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?
Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?
Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?
Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?
Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
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]
Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2: 3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?
Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?
Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?
Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader? "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged." As clearly understood from the New International Version [NIV] "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange I speak as to my children open wide your hearts also."
Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14: 9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?
Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are KJV-Only!]
Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek]
Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10]
Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page 485 see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his & many others' views in the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."]
Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect' translation the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John. 3:16]."?
Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"? [Difficulties in the Bible, page 17]
Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our KJV," thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6]
Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch?
meli
Aug 31 2008, 09:25 PM
In reply to the question asked by someone earlier Can you read the 1611 version, I have been doing that for some months now. Though I admit it's tough going sometimes for sure. I have in some regards found it enlightening especially the apocrypha which I had never read before. When I hit a bit that confuses me I try to search for other translations to see their opinion on the translation as some words can have several meanings. Even before they get translated into English. Whomever linked E-Sword by the way, thank you thank you!
Since my journey with the 1611 version, I've since tried to find and read all the writings that are mentioned elsewhere in the bible but are not included. Sadly some are no longer available. Many would say I walk dangerous ground to even consider reading these "other" books but why are they mentioned in our bible if they aren't important? And if they were important why are they not included. More questions I know. Speaking of which, I think Eli asks some important questions of which I have no answers but they are something to think and ponder on certainly.
For the original question about the KJV being the only true one, no I don't think so obviously as it wasn't originally written in English! Though I tend to read the KJV mostly because that's what I was brought up with and I don't find the language used particularly difficult though I know some people do and that's fair enough. I doubt it is error free just as I doubt any version is error free. What we have was copied and recopied before it even got to the point of being turned into English. And let's face it translators are often faced with difficult choices. Having said all of that, I certainly don't worship the KJV version or any other version or any book anywhere. I worship God.
