KJV

If the KJV was such a proper gounding then there is no way he would be "shocked" {his word}.

 

some of these folks really need to be *grounded*--permanently!

 

In order to be shocked one must be properly grounded

 

Hello all.
I must humbly admit I am not all I should be , but God is still working on me.
Ok let us take a look.NIV missing 64,000 words,(wounder what you have been missing?).Then open your Bible to Mark 9:44. WHAT IT'S GONE!!
who do you think took it. let me give you a hint,Mark 4:15 Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word. Ok turn to Mark 9:46 WHAT HE TOOK THAT ONE ALSO!! Luke17:36 NOT ANOTHER!!
And bud that is just the beginning there is much more. What about Hell, we know Satan would like to get that out.He does not want people warned about Hell. look at these verses. Job 11:8, 2 Sam 22:6, P.s 18:5, P.s 116:3, P.s 55:15, Matt. 11:23, Luke 10:15, And I quoit[NIV Editor,R> Laird Harris. The NIV translators came to a decision regarding the meaning of [Hell] the meaning grave fits.
Quoit Johovah Witnesses: [Hell] applies to the common grave of all mankind.
Bud, Hell is a real place of tourment not a grave.
One more and I have got to go, lets look at Luke 4:4 Jesus said in the KJV, That man shall not live by bread alone, BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD.
NIV:man shall not live by bread alone.
If I was a new Christian I would not know what to feed on besides bread. also lookat 2 Peter 2:2
You know if I were one who has been using the NIV, NASB ,Living or any other I would want to see what has been hidin from me.
God bless: bro Jeff
Tommorw we will look at the NKJV and its not good.

 

Can't wait until tomorrow. This is sure to be good.

 

Originally posted by bro jeff:
Hello all.
I must humbly admit I am not all I should be , but God is still working on me.
Ok let us take a look.NIV missing 64,000 words,(wounder what you have been missing?).

What is your standard?
Should we imply that the KJV actually adds 64,000 words to the Bible that shouldn't be there? Kind of depends on what you are holding up as your ultimate standard doesn't it?

Then open your Bible to Mark 9:44. WHAT IT'S GONE!!

Do you know why? If you are translating from different Greek texts there will be differences
in the resulting English.

One more and I have got to go, lets look at Luke 4:4 Jesus said in the KJV, That man shall not live by bread alone, BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD.
NIV:man shall not live by bread alone.
If I was a new Christian I would not know what to feed on besides bread.

Couldn't they look over at Math 4:4?

Tommorw we will look at the NKJV and its not good.Let me guess:

1) Nelson publishers uses a supposedly Satanic symbol for the NKJV.
2) The NKJV has footnotes with the Majority and
Critical Texts info in it.
3) The NKJV translates things differently from the KJV.

#1 is silly
#2 KJV had footnotes too (some textual)
#3 Of course. Language has changed, word meanings have changed..some things in Greek are better translated a certain way (for example, the cases of the Objective Genitive: KJV "faith of Christ" NKJV and MV "faith in Christ" which has thrown not a few off).

My $0.02
kman

[ August 08, 2002, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: kman ]

 

Jeff,

If you were a student of ALL the ancient manuscripts, the Alexandrian/Byzantine argument, you would not be making your ludicrous claims. The "left outs" that the KJV includes are not found in the earlier Alexandrian manuscripts. Save your credibility. Love your KJV, but don't be so naive as to claim that it is the only translation that God has had His hand on. Remember, it was an earthly king who "authorized" the KJV, not the King of Kings!

God bless,
John

[ August 08, 2002, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: wellsjs ]

 

I respect all brethren and the choice they may have in reading; however, I must say I am KJV.

I do not believe any modern translation has done any more than to make lazy students. If I am not moved enough by scripture to study deeper and more importantly to pray more fervently for light, then I just am not moved, modern interpretations, which claim more coherency are not going to improve my understanding of the Word of God. The KJV holds this dear place in my life because I remember when I read and studied it and tried to understand it from my own logic, but have learned to receive that which God provides and that in His time.

The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us. But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us. But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us. And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us. And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.

God Bless you all in your walk and service to Him.

Dallas Eaton II

Matt. 27.25

 

bro jeff claims:

NIV missing 64,000 words

Missing them from where? Since the NIV is one of the few English Bibles that is not a KJV revision of some kind, it is completely inaccurate to say it is "missing" these words. They were never there to be removed.

 

Frogman said:

I do not believe any modern translation has done any more than to make lazy students.

He then goes on to describe what he means by "lazy students":

If I am not moved enough by scripture to study deeper and more importantly to pray more fervently for light, then I just am not moved,

As a thoroughgoing user of modern versions, particularly the NASB, I can say truthfully that I am so moved.

modern interpretations, which claim more coherency are not going to improve my understanding of the Word of God.

I have had my understanding of the Word of God greatly improved by the use of a translation in my own dialect.

So it appears that your assessment is inaccurate. Universal claims are refuted by a single counter-example, which I have provided.

[ August 08, 2002, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Hi Dallas:

Please consider getting a NKJV bible and doing some reading/study in it. No bible translation is perfect, but I think it does a really good job in updating the KJV into modern terminology, fixing certain translational "things", etc. You might be pleasantly suprised!

-kman

[ August 08, 2002, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: kman ]

 

The so called missing 64,000 words.

What has to be looked at, is not whether they are missing or added, but what words are they?

The NIV and other versions that use the same text for translating into English, that are supposably missing 64,000 words. The supposably missing words, seem to leave some questions about, or an unclear conclusion about some of the Doctrines and dogmas in the Bible.

The extra 64,000 words in the KJB/KJV, clairify the Doctrines and dogmas of God's Word, and thus become more clearer and better understood.

The arguement about, older being better, doesn't hold water here either, just as newer, doesn't either. And Majority and Minority doesn't hold water either. And using the people behind it like King James or Westcot/Hort doesn't work either. Reason being, is that we wouldn't know if some one altered the text or at what time they were altered!

We just don't have the original manuscripts. They are all copies!

So, now we are at the point of, how do we decide on which version? Well, let's look at another point of concern.

When most of the Cults goes after Christianity, they will use the Bible as ammunition to attack our beliefs and justify their own. So, what versions do they use or don't they use?

This next statement is from experience of studing with these Cults for over 2 years, before we knew the difference between all the versions, and before the Lord saved us.

The Cults most generally use the NIV, NASB, NKJV, Living, and others that are supposably missing the 64,000 words! And have never found them to use the KJB/KJV, to support their beliefs or to attack Christianity, on doctrinal issues.

INTERESTING!

 

No. I would say it is very significant whether the words were inspired by God or added/deleted by men.

This statement of course begs the question, "Does your doctrine come from the Bible or does your doctrine determine the Bible?"

So your answer would be that your doctrine does determine what the Bible should say. I suggest that if you can "prove" a doctrine from the KJV that you cannot prove from the NKJV, UBS4, MT, NASB, etc. then the doctrine should come into question, not the MV's or Texts.

Yes they do. There is a great deal of merit in the scientific study of what the evidence says about the originals.

Granted. But we do have enough evidence to get so close to the originals that we can say with complete confidence that none of God's Word is missing even though we don't know with 100% certainty what words were used originally to express it.

If you have in fact studied the Bible versions of cults for over two years, I question how you can possibly miss the fact that the largest cult, the Mormons, is KJV only. Further, the JW's use the KJV as do the 7th Day Adventists and the Worldwide Church of God although they are not KJVO.

The fact is, once you consider the Mormons, it appears there are more cultists using the KJV than any other.

If this statement is not true, I am interested in your proof. However, this is really a non-issue. The fact that the cults pervert the KJV does not prove that the KJV teaches false doctrine... no more than cultic use of another version proves that it teaches false doctrine.

 

What I'd like to know is who counted these 64,000 words, and what the complete list of words are. Was it someone on this forum, or is this just regurgitated hearsay?

 

Fiddlestix! I HATE to interrupt here, but I am going blind by "trying" to read some of these MVs on the 'net[so's to get a better idea of what y'all be talking about] & I have noticed something: There always seems to be a confusion, of sorts, when scripture is compared with scripture-(not so, in the KJBible!)

For example: In the NKJV, in comparing John 5:31 to John 8:14~first it says His witness is NOT valid & then it says His witness IS valid---so which is it?

Now in the good ol'KJBible, the words are "witness" & "record", so Christ does not contradict Himself. My 'straight stick' is so clear, allowing me to gain so much more spiritual understanding.

 

Justified said:

The so called missing 64,000 words.

The ones that aren't missing, you mean, since they were never in the NIV to begin with?

What has to be looked at, is not whether they are missing or added, but what words are they?

Probably needless wordiness. The Bible has, what, around 31-32,000 verses? So on average that means every verse is two words shorter, which isn't that much.

You'd be amazed how tight you can make prose with some careful editing. Simply eliminating the passive voice will shorten a work by 10% without losing one iota of meaning. Kudos to the NIV editors for taking some care with their English.

[ August 08, 2002, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Brian, as I understand the arguement, the number 64,000 was determined by using bible search software to count the number of words in the NIV and count the number of words in the KJV, and compare them. It seems the NIV is 64,000 words shorter than the KJV. However, there is no point to the number as it is possible to say exactly the same thing using fewer words, and, the Modern English of 1611 tended to be a bit more verbose than the Modern English of 1972, so much of that difference can be accounted for.

As far as Old Testament differences, most of the differences are due to translational choices rather than textual variants. For instance, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the Hebrew text which underlies most of the contemporary English versions, differs from the Ben Chayyim text, which underlies the KJV (Bomberg), in only 8 places that would have an effect on translation: Proverbs 8:16; Isaiah 10:16; Isaiah 27:2; Isaiah 38:14; Jeremiah 34:1; Ezekiel 30:18; Zephaniah 3:15; and Malachi 1:12. The other changes are either translational choices or examples of where the KJV departs from the Masoretic text altogether such as 1 Kings 20:38.

The New Testament differences in the Greek between the text underlying the KJV (Scrivener's TR [yeah, yeah, I know, but I am just using it for arguments sake]) and that underlying the NIV (UBS 2) amount to slightly less than 10,000 words. Of those, in my opinion, no major doctrine is seriously effected with the possible exception of the requirement for Baptism as found in Acts 8:37 in the KJV but missing altogether in the NIV. And even that may be infered from other portions of the NT.

Until Justified, or someone else, can post a comparison of the two versions that proves conclusively that doctrine is eliminated, changed, or otherwise affected by the missing words, the burden of proof remains with him. And, it would seem, he has not, as yet, posted such evidence. Until then his assertions are moot.

 

Scott,

I am a KJB/KJV person.

As for the cults, I find it interesting while studying with them that they always went to the other versions. after we got saved and started using the KJB/KJV, they pointed out that it was the only Bible that had those verses and diffences of words in it.

Which is what started our studying the different Bibles out there.

And who did count all those words? Whether it is an actual or rounded number, it is still quite the spanse of margins.

I believe in the inerrent inspired Word of God, and that now is translated into the KJB.

I believe that Satan has altered the other text that are missing those words, and just enough to start putting cracks into the foundations of Christain doctrines in the future.

 

Guess what John the apostle wrote ... The same thing in both verses. The word John used in 5:31 and 8:14 is "marturo" -- to witness or testify. When the KJV uses different words, it is not following the example of John the original author who used the same words. It appears therefore that your problem is not with modern versions it appears but rather with what the Holy Spirit inspired John to write.

 

Hey Pastor L~ What I read was this: "The King James translators were led by the Holy Spirit of God to translate the same Greek word two different ways because they had received understanding of the context. God blessed their efforts & today we are blessed by their work & willingness to submit to the leading of the Spirit of God.