The white genocide agenda, sometimes called the Kalergi plan, is a documented and observable fact. Just read their playbook "Practical Idealism:

@SW-User lololol the actual Bible was written in Hebrew, Assyrian and Koine Greek, you tool.

@SW-User So have many cultures, and they should all be recognized for their beautiful creations and contributions.

@SW-User Be honest.

@basilfawlty89 Reread my comment. Man, you really don't know how to think. I said THE KING JAMES BIBLE. MEANING OUR ENGLISH BIBLE. Do you understand those words? Obviously originally the Bible was written by the Jews in the original languages Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). But men like William Tyndale are responsible for giving us our English language and getting the Bible translated into English for us.

@basilfawlty89 Apparently you did not read it, so I will repeat myself.

I said THE KING JAMES BIBLE. MEANING OUR ENGLISH BIBLE. Do you understand those words? Obviously originally the Bible was written by the Jews in the original languages Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). But men like William Tyndale are responsible for giving us our English language and getting the Bible translated into English for us.

@basilfawlty89 Also, it is not a bad translation, it is God's perfect word in English. There have been no doctrinal or important changes, just some minor printing and publishing errors. The only so called revisions were font, typographical and minor spelling errors like certain names and cities, because the spelling of words was not yet standardized in 1611. That didn't happen until later, so there were words spelled differently in 1611 than they are today. So, the spelling had to be standardized. There were no changes in verses or doctrinal changes. What we have in the King James Bible is the exact same thing as what was in the original Hebrew and Greek. God told us that he would preserve his words and he absolutely did!

Psalms 12:6-7 - The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.
First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:
1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.

@SW-User The KJV is mainly popular in the US, and comparatively recently.

@SW-User says When you say KJV (based on the 1560 English Geneva Bible) You are talking actually about the 1769 version, which incorporates the Cambridge University revisions (1638) plus the Oxford revisions (1760).

Yeah, even though the colophon might say 1611, your version doesn't have the Esdras,Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Baruch, etc. Indeed, 15 apocryphal books were removed from your "perfect" 1611 bible, and many small corrections were made.

I prefer the KJV as well; it sounds like Shakespeare to me; but we can't deny that there were many variations between 1611 and 1769, and we can't deny that many other versions with updated research and more modern English have been published. There is no "one Bible" and never has been.

@ElwoodBlues Satan is the author of confusion, remember that. If Satan can't get you to deny the Scriptures, then he'll try to get you to doubt the Scriptures. If Satan can't get you to deny or doubt the Scriptures, then he'll try to confuse you concerning “which Bible” to use. The 1611 King James Bible is God's inspired, infallible, inerrant, impeccable and preserved Words of God. That's what it is! We have God's inspired Words in the English-speaking language, without error!

I fully realize that most King James Bibles published today are based upon the 1769 Oxford text (an edition of the 1611 version). The authorized 1611 King James Version has never been revised, only edited. The main purpose of the 1762 and 1769 editions was the standardization of spelling. This in no way altered the meaning or preservation or inspiration of the 1611 King James Bible. We can trust our King James Bible.

I already mentioned above that the only variations were font, typographical and minor spelling errors like certain names and cities, because the spelling of words was not yet standardized in 1611.

There is only one correct Bible - the KJV. All of the modern bible versions, however, like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV, NLT and all the others are corruptions and perversion which have a completely different line of manuscripts - Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which go back to Alexandria Egypt (the Bible always has bad to say about Egypt). The King James comes to us from the received text or the Textus Receptus (which has over 5,000 extant greek manuscripts backing it, whereas the manuscripts of the modern versions have less than 50 manuscripts), and the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts goes back to Antioch Syria, which is where they were first called Christians in the Bible.

Also, I already addressed the Apocryphal books argument:

@SW-User Why do you believe in ancient ethnocentric Middle Estern Jewish religious fairytales that despise non-Jews?