Why the King James Bible IS inspired. Proof.

There is a huge debate as to whether the King James Bible is inspired, or whether only the Textus Receptus and the Hebraic Tanakh (bomberg) is the only inspired scriptures. Well, the truth is they both are inspired. You see the bible says that every word of God is pure.

Pro 30:5  Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Psa 12:6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psa 18:30  As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.

You see every single verse in the King James Bible is inspired. If those words were translated correctly then it means that every verse is inspired. If it said the same in Hebrew or Greek from which it was translated then it should be called inspired.

Hence we can even call the verses in the Geneva Bible inspired apart from the Apocrypha which they self claimed was not inspired.

A bible is a collection of the all the inspired verses but once these verses are removed it no longer makes it a complete bible. For instance. Lets look at an inspired verse of the bible.

Deu 32:4  He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

You see that verse right there is inspired. It might be inspired in the original meaning but if that was translated correctly then we can tell that the translation of that verse can be also called inspired.

Now lets look at the King James Bible.

All the verses that should be there, are there and no verses are left out. That means all the inspired words of God is in that book. All of them. This makes the bible itself inspired.

Sure there are debates whether all the words were translated correctly but that is another debate. Or rather hundreds of debates. But saying the KJV did translate all the verses correctly and as accurate as possible in the English language then that would make the King James Bible inspired.

According to the Nestle-Aland the Textus Receptus is the "poorest of New Testament text"

In the intro to the Novum Testamentum Graece Nestle-Aland 26th edition the following is written:
“When Eberhard Nestle produced the first edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece in 1898, neither he nor the sponsoring Wurttemburg Bible Society could have imagined the full extent of what had been started.  Although the Textus Receptus could still claim a wide range of defenders, the scholarship of the nineteenth century had conclusively demonstrated it to be the poorest form of the New Testament text.” (Introduction to Novum Testamentum Graece – Nestle-Aland 26th Edition)
Say what? The Textus Receptus is the “poorest form of New Testament Text”? Are they insane?
Lets look at the offspring of this Greek version and bibles that come from it:
The most corrupt bible of probably all times The Good News bible
The worst of poorest bible translations the NIV
The updated NASB of 1995
And most shockingly of all, The New King James Version uses the text of Nestle-Aland, the same people that said the Textus Receptus is the poorest of New Testament text, to think the NKJV is supposedly from the Textus Receptus. How about mixing the two most opposites.

The Scriptures (TS98) messes up the Comma Johanneum

7Because there are three who bear witness:8the Spirit, and the water, and the blood.And the three are in agreement.

That is according to “The Scriptures”.   Comma Johanneum has been corrupted here. Why? Its in the Textus Receptus, why not here?

How is it supposed to look?

Well something in this order:

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


More corruptions of Wikipedia on Codex Bezae

On the Codex Bezae page doubt is cast on the Codex Bezae with some new edit. This was most definately inserted by someone that strongly believes in the Egyptian line of texts. The Textus Receptus comes from Codex Bezae as Stephanus used it to translate the Royal Edition.