How to know changes in the Bible

[peacecrusader888]

The spirit of Ama told us (plural) to use the King James Version of the Holy Bible because it is "nearer the truth" (than other versions).

Normally, the verse in the Bible ends with a period (John 1:1). If the sentence is long, then it may be broken up into two verses. The first verse may end up with a colon (John 9:20-21, 11:25-26) or sometimes, a comma (John 2:9-10, 9:6-7).

The verse may be short as in John 11:35 (Jesus wept.) or in John 10:30 (I and my Father are one.)

Now, how can we detect any change in the Bible? It usually is (and sometimes the third) the second sentence of the verse. It is up to us to accept it as error or not.

But Ama said that it is only Jesus who is the child of the Blessed Virgin Mary. So Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 should be ignored.

If Jesus said it, then most likely, it is true and is His word. The verse is in red in a Red Letter Edition.

 

[Father Heathen]

So the KJV is "more true" than its own source material?

 

[McBell]

So the KJV is "more true" than its own source material?

Most King James Onlyist say yes.
In fact, Peter Ruckman flat out says that if the original writing disagrees with the KJV to toss out the original.

 

[Father Heathen]

Most King James Onlyist say yes.
In fact, Peter Ruckman flat out says that if the original writing disagrees with the KJV to toss out the original.

Surely they have a compelling argument?

 

[McBell]

Surely they have a compelling argument?

Ruckman's "argument" is Divine Intervention.
He believes that God himself took over the KJV translators and forced them to write what God wanted written.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

The living translation is a good one too.

 

[Apologes]

I'd recommend staying away from the Red Letter editions of the Bible as every serious scholar did. The textual nature of the Gospels makes it meaningless to quote out things Jesus said "directly". (As if such a thing can be confirmed...)