KJV: Why is it the one and others wrong?

[jbh28]

Of course people get angry without a cause. A person can be angry because his neighbor came home with a new car. That is not a just reason to be angry at someone. But if someone broke into your home and stole all your belongings, that is a just reason to be angry with them.

who said anything about a "just reason." He did have a cause.

And the KJB IS teaching that it is OK to be angry with someone when they have done wrong to you. If someone murdered your family, you have a right to be upset and angry with them. That is not sin on your part. But if you are angry at someone when they have not done wrong, like coming home with a fancy new car, that is sin. Folks get jealous and angry with others all the time for unjust reasons like this.

So does the NASB...

Nobody can PROVE the KJB right or wrong, that is what I have been trying to get across to you and others. You either accept it by faith or you don't. It is not a blind faith, there are reasons to believe the KJB is the preserved Word of God in English, these would be the scholarly arguments for it. But, as I have said, there are scholarly arguments against it, so in the end you must turn to faith. This question will NEVER be solved through scholarship.

It is through scholarship. Don't deny it. What reasons do you have that it's the KJV. I'm guessing you will use scholarship. Any "faith" would be a blind faith as what you are saying about a single translation is never taught in Scripture.

I didn't say there is no evidence for the KJB, I said there is scholarship that supports it, and scholarship against it, so in the end you must accept it by faith or not. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

faith in what? The Bible never teaches what you are advocating. And as for scholarship. you are choosing to believe the scholarship for it. It's still scholarship. There is nothing wrong with scholarship.

Well, I'm glad they got rid of them, the MVs should take a stand and do the same. All footnotes do is add doubt and confusion.

They don't cause doubt. I don't doubt it any more than they did in 1611. You can pretend there are no variants in the manuscripts, but the fact remains that there are. I'm thankful for honest translators that let me know that a variant exists. Why would you want to remain in the dark that a variant exists? Talk about confusion!

You don''t believe it is preserved, you believe there are variants.

Wait, are you saying there are no variants? Please tell me you are not serious? I however do believe the Bible is preserved. All the words are preserved. I do not believe that copyist were kept from error. Why? 1) The Bible never says that they would be. 2) no two manuscripts read a like. They have variants. This cannot be denied by anyone.

I agree there are texts that are different, but they cannot ALL be the scriptures. That is a contradiction. The last 12 verses of Mark cannot both be supposed to be in the scriptures and also be omitted. That is lunacy.

So there are variants. Then I guess you don't believe in preservation....

When a variant is there, there is only one correct answer. That we agree. What you are advocating is that one single text always got it right. That is just false and unbilical. Not to mention inconsistent.

Well, you just keep on with the scholarship and see where it will get you. You will be more confused 10 years from now than you are today.

I'm not confused at all Winman. Why the cheap shot? you have advocated something very false here yet you want to say I'm confused? your premise that one text has to be perfect cannot be true. Your TR text didn't exist until the 1600's. Before then, there was no single text that matched the TR.

 

[Oldtimer]

Why is it that we never hear of these passages in these sort of discussions, and can a pastor in this age preach these verses in a mixed congregation with children present? I do not make light of the Bible. I understand that it was translated this way because that is what the original language implied (and worse!), but CAN we read these passages in a day when we wash the mouths of our young people with soap if they say them?

"piss"
occurs 2 times in 2 verses in the KJV
Page 1 / 1 exact matches (2Ki 18:27 - Isa 36:12)

"ass"
occurs 90 times in 80 verses in the KJV
Page 1 / 4 exact matches (Gen 22:3 - Num 22:29)

(And, yes, I know that "ass" refers to a donkey, but how many of our young folks know that?)

2Ki 18:27 KJV But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? [hath he] not [sent me] to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

"pisseth"
occurs 6 times in 6 verses in the KJV
Page 1 / 1 exact matches (1Sa 25:22 - 2Ki 9:8)

1Sa 25:22 So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that [pertain] to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

1Sa 25:23 ¶ And when Abigail saw David, she hasted, and lighted off the ass, and fell before David on her face, and bowed herself to the ground,

1Sa 25:34 For in very deed, [as] the LORD God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

1Ki 14:10 Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, [and] him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.

1Ki 16:11 And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, [that] he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.

And some of the words that everyone is SO upset that Rush Limbaugh used...

"whore"
occurs 15 times in 15 verses in the KJV
Page 1 / 1 exact matches (Lev 19:29 - Rev 19:2)

Lev 19:29 ¶ Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.

Lev 21:7 They shall not take a wife [that is] a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he [is] holy unto his God.

"bastard"
occurs 2 times in 2 verses in the KJV
Page 1 / 1 exact matches (Deu 23:2 - Zec 9:6)

Deu 23:2 ¶ A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Zec 9:6 And a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.

I include these just for contemplation...

Lev 21:18 For whatsoever man [he be] that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, 20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

IMHO, this is one of the weakest arguements that I've seen against the KJB.

Growing up, I'd get the equivalent of having my mouth washed out with soap for using some of the words you've mentioned. Yet, I knew about them and what they meant. Thus, it wasn't a "shock" when I read them in the Bible or heard one of them in an Sunday School class for older youth.

If during worship services one of those words were a part of the scriptures for that day, the pastor didn't dwell on the word or make a big deal of repeating it over and over again for "effect" or "shock value".

We are being conditioned to be so politically correct that we can't utter more and more words that were spoken in our past. Good or bad, those words are a part of our history. Some are even re-writing history to erase them, as if they never existed. Heard not long ago at Mark Twain's works are being sanitized in new editions.

The opportunity to teach children the values that I learned as a child are being erased with White Out. Teach a child what the word dwarf means, that it was and still is an acceptable word. And teach that current society often frowns on the use of the word to describe a physical condition of "Little People". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarfism

BTW, the politically correct "Little People" is like fingernails on a blackboard to me. It's putting a group of people who don't meet societies standards into a special class. Separating them, if you will, from what is recognized as being the "norm" when measured with a yardstick. FWIW, there is some dwarfism in my family. So, I know what it means to be less than 4'10" tall.

Instead of sanitizing the Bible, use it to teach! To teach history, to teach that Jesus recognizes individuals regardless of their less than perfect physical condition. And, even to teach how what "society" determines to be PC is shaping language usage to meet society's standards. That is conforming God's word to the will of man.

If the the Greek or Hebrew manuscript contained what would be the English equivalent of "bastard" or "whore" keep those words in English bibles. To do less is to remove God's Hands from the potter's wheel and replace them with societies hands.

 

[glfredrick]

My larger point is that we do not HAVE to use those precise words to ACCURATELY define the subject matter at hand, and in fact have MORE accurate words that do not invlolve some sord of word play.

The smaller point is that reading those words in the hearing of a child, who has in all liklihood had a recent episode concerning the use of "swear" or "curse" words, will do nothing more than confuse that child and draw attention to the Word of God in ways that are innapropriate.

Is my argument weak? Yup. But, it is yet another in the long list that stacks against a KJVO mindset. When all the arguments against it are stacked up, the result is that it would be wise to use a more modern translation that removes many of the issues.

As far as underlying text is concerned, that is a red herring argument. It is utterly a fabrication to insist that the underlying texts are what DRIVES the KJV translation, when in fact it was plagurized in over 70% of its volume from pre-existing English versions that were derived from other texts and even from a paraphrase of the Latin. If it were as perfect as the KJVO fundamentalists suggest then it would have no discernable or demonstrable evidence of need to be changed and yet it too has undergone numerous revisions.

Like it... Prefer it... Fine. Suggest that the KJV is the ONLY possible translation -- pure hogwash from a fundamentalist perspective that is both ignorant and ill informed.

 

[Winman]

who said anything about a "just reason." He did have a cause.

No, it means a just reason and you know it. If a stranger approached you and slugged you in the mouth, he surely had some reason to do so, but that does not mean he had a just cause or reason. Why do you make such a foolish argument? I think you know better.

So does the NASB...

No, the NASB gives the impression it is always wrong to be angry at another person. If someone murdered your family, you cannot be angry at them, it would be sin according to the NASB. Again, why do you cling to such foolish arguments?

Jesus overthrew the moneychanger's tables in the temple, according to the NASB that would be sin.

It is through scholarship. Don't deny it. What reasons do you have that it's the KJV. I'm guessing you will use scholarship. Any "faith" would be a blind faith as what you are saying about a single translation is never taught in Scripture.

Yes, scholarship influenced my faith. It is not a blind faith. But as I keep repeating to you, there is much scholarship against the KJB. You see arguments against the KJB here all the time. So, in the end a person must decide if one of the versions is true and accurate, or they are all corrupt. It is not possible the scriptures should both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark. So, a version that includes these verses and a version that omits these verses cannot both be preserved. That is ridiculous.

faith in what? The Bible never teaches what you are advocating. And as for scholarship. you are choosing to believe the scholarship for it. It's still scholarship. There is nothing wrong with scholarship.

Scholarship has it's place, but we are to believe the Word of God by faith. How can any Christian not agree with this?

I believe the creation account by faith. If I were to base my faith on scholarship, modern science would convince me it is not true.

They don't cause doubt. I don't doubt it any more than they did in 1611. You can pretend there are no variants in the manuscripts, but the fact remains that there are. I'm thankful for honest translators that let me know that a variant exists. Why would you want to remain in the dark that a variant exists? Talk about confusion!

Of course they cause confusion. When I was a young boy first saved and reading the Bible, I would read these footnotes that said things like "older manuscripts omit these verses". Now I didn't know if these verses were God's words and should be listened to, or if they had been added by man. They absolutely caused me to be confused, and that is why I read many books on the subject. I simply wanted to know exactly what God said.

Wait, are you saying there are no variants? Please tell me you are not serious? I however do believe the Bible is preserved. All the words are preserved. I do not believe that copyist were kept from error. Why? 1) The Bible never says that they would be. 2) no two manuscripts read a like. They have variants. This cannot be denied by anyone.

Of course there are variants. There are manuscripts that include the last 12 verses of Mark, and there are manuscripts that omit it. They cannot both be accurate and preserved. That is ridiculous.

So there are variants. Then I guess you don't believe in preservation....

It is you that believes variants can ALL be preserved, not me.

When a variant is there, there is only one correct answer. That we agree. What you are advocating is that one single text always got it right. That is just false and unbilical. Not to mention inconsistent.

Give me a break, I am a KJB "only". I believe ONE text was correct. Show me scripture that says this view is wrong.

I'm not confused at all Winman. Why the cheap shot? you have advocated something very false here yet you want to say I'm confused? your premise that one text has to be perfect cannot be true. Your TR text didn't exist until the 1600's. Before then, there was no single text that matched the TR.

I would say anybody who believes the scriptures should both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark is very confused whether they are aware of it or not.

 

[John of Japan]

John, I don't think you read what I said carefully. I acknowledged that there are countries that do not have scriptures based on the KJB text, but I said there have been missionaries that have PREACHED from the KJB in every nation. That is why I highlighted the word "preached".

I did read it that way, and I still don't think it is true. I do not think that there have been missionaries who preached from the KJB in every country. For example, who has preached to the Kurds from the KJB, for example? I know of no IFB missionaries, much less KJB-only missionariies to the Kurds.

Even if they preached from the KJB, how would the people understand if you didn't preach in their language? And you don't preach in a country unless you have the language down well. And in that case there is probably already a Bible in that country.

 

[gb93433]

No, the NASB gives the impression it is always wrong to be angry at another person. If someone murdered your family, you cannot be angry at them, it would be sin according to the NASB. Again, why do you cling to such foolish arguments?

Not quite. Eph. 4:26-27, "Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not give the devil an opportunity."

So, in the end a person must decide if one of the versions is true and accurate, or they are all corrupt. It is not possible the scriptures should both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark. So, a version that includes these verses and a version that omits these verses cannot both be preserved. That is ridiculous.

The KJV is a translation into English. The fact is that this sort of thing was going on before Jesus was on this earth. There were at least three translations into Greek and each translating with a different focus.

If I were to base my faith on scholarship, modern science would convince me it is not true.

Some have chosen to believe those scientists. Others have chosen to believe other scientists who can show the creation account is correct. I became a Christian when I was a physics major in college. God used what I was learning in my classes top reach me.

Of course they cause confusion. When I was a young boy first saved and reading the Bible, I would read these footnotes that said things like "older manuscripts omit these verses". Now I didn't know if these verses were God's words and should be listened to, or if they had been added by man. They absolutely caused me to be confused, and that is why I read many books on the subject. I simply wanted to know exactly what God said.

Now that you are older you should have a good handle on manuscript evidence because of your desire to know. If more is betetr than the older KJV with a apocrypha would be better. Why not add the pseudepigrapha too?

Give me a break, I am a KJB "only". I believe ONE text was correct.

Where does the MT, LXX, and some other Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts fit in? What would you do with the translations that preceded the English language? Jesus did not seem to have a problem with more than one text being present during his time on earth.

I would say anybody who believes the scriptures should both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark is very confused whether they are aware of it or not.

Do you agree with Mark 16:17 about speaking in new tongues? If so then could you be named a pentecostal?

 

[Winman]

I did read it that way, and I still don't think it is true. I do not think that there have been missionaries who preached from the KJB in every country. For example, who has preached to the Kurds from the KJB, for example? I know of no IFB missionaries, much less KJB-only missionariies to the Kurds.

Even if they preached from the KJB, how would the people understand if you didn't preach in their language? And you don't preach in a country unless you have the language down well. And in that case there is probably already a Bible in that country.

John, I would bet the chances are pretty good that someone has preached to the Kurds from the KJB, though I do not know that for a fact.

Part of the Bible was first available in the Kurdish language in 1856 in the Kurmanji dialect. The Gospels were translated by Stepan, an Armenian employee of the American Bible Society and were published in 1857. Isaac Grout Bliss, of the American Bible Society translated the rest of the NT books, and the entire New Testament was published in Istanbul by A.H. Bohajian in 1872. It was published in the Armenian alphabet. Ludvig Olsen Fossum of the United Norwegian Lutheran Church of America translated the Bible into the Mukri dialect of Sorani Kurdish of Iran. It was published in the Arabic script under the title Injil Muqqades, in 1919. A part of the Bible was first available in the Mukri dialect in 1909. Part of the Bible was first available in Kermanshahi in 1894. Modern translations are being done into many different dialects. Biblica (International Bible Society) is translating into Sorani, Institute for Bible Translation into Cyrillic Kurmanji for Kurds in the post Soviet Union. KLA into Bedhini Kurdish, and also the gospel of Luke has been translated into Zaza Kurdish.

Now, I don't know for certain which text the American Bible Society used, but it says the entire New Testament was published in 1872. Chances are it was the TR and not the CT.

And I realize the preaching would have to be translated into that language and cannot be word for word.

 

[gb93433]

John, I would bet the chances are pretty good that someone has preached to the Kurds from the KJB, though I do not know that for a fact.

From an English text?

 

[Winman]

Not quite. Eph. 4:26-27, "Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not give the devil an opportunity."

That's fine if a person reads that verse. But I remember a well known poster here that said she was confused by Mat 5:22 and thought it was wrong to be angry at another person for any reason about 2 years ago. I participated in that thread. This person is still active here today.

The KJV is a translation into English. The fact is that this sort of thing was going on before Jesus was on this earth. There were at least three translations into Greek and each translating with a different focus.

So, what you seem to be implying is that no accurate text of the scriptures ever existed? Therefore we cannot trust any version. Wow, that sure inspires faith!

Some have chosen to believe those scientists. Others have chosen to believe other scientists who can show the creation account is correct. I became a Christian when I was a physics major in college. God used what I was learning in my classes top reach me.

The point I was making is that if you believe the creation account as I do, you must do so by faith. I wasn't there to observe what happened. But if I were to listen to modern scholarship I would not believe the creation account.

Now that you are older you should have a good handle on manuscript evidence because of your desire to know. If more is betetr than the older KJV with a apocrypha would be better. Why not add the pseudepigrapha too?

Where does the MT, LXX, and some other Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts fit in? What would you do with the translations that preceded the English language? Jesus did not seem to have a problem with more than one text being present during his time on earth.

It has been a long time since I studied this subject, so I have forgotten most of what I learned. I do know the KJB translators used a vast number of texts. They had many tests to determine if a text was scripture or not. There were many books they rejected. I personally believe God was behind this effort, I believe God is behind all of human history. And I believe God assisted these men to come up with an accurate translation, whether they themselves believed that or not.

I would say anybody who believes the scriptures should both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark is very confused whether they are aware of it or not.

Do you agree with Mark 16:17 about speaking in new tongues? If so then could you be named a pentecostal?

I certainly believe they spoke in tongues in the NT, it is recorded in Acts chapter 2.

As far as today, I have witnessed speaking in tongues, I had a friend who was a Pentacostal, one day I went to his house and his wife was having a prayer meeting and they were speaking in tongues. I do not believe this was the tongues of the NT, and I asked to leave, I really couldn't stand to listen to it.

I believe tongues were a known human language, and this gift was used to spread the gospel to other nations. But once Christians were converted in those lands and churches formed, there was no more need for tongues, and that the gift faded away.

I have never witnessed what I believe is true scriptural tongues today. But if some Christian were to have the instant ability to speak a language he did not previously know, I would have to agree this is the gift of tongues. I have never seen that.

 

[gb93433]

That's fine if a person reads that verse. But I remember a well known poster here that said she was confused by Mat 5:22 and thought it was wrong to be angry at another person for any reason about 2 years ago. I participated in that thread. This person is still active here today.

She does not know what context is then.

So, what you seem to be implying is that no accurate text of the scriptures ever existed? Therefore we cannot trust any version. Wow, that sure inspires faith!

I would say that the original likely existed. However we do not have those manuscripts. All we have is copies. At some point in time commentary was often added. The effort being made today is to determine which was text and which was commentary.

Jesus dealt with the same issues we have today. He does not seem to have made an issue out of it. In Mt. 19, He talked about what God wanted from the beginning. If there are mistakes in terms of it being perfect of not does not affect my faith in Christ. It does not prevent me from practicing James 1:22. The fact is that we do not much about some of the words used in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek text of the Bible. So not only do we have a textual issue but a correct usage issue.

My God is alive and he is not limited just to the words on a page.

The point I was making is that if you believe the creation account as I do, you must do so by faith. I wasn't there to observe what happened. But if I were to listen to modern scholarship I would not believe the creation account.

Creation is a one time historical event. It cannot be proven or rejected by the scientific method. I have found some excellent modern day scholarship that points to creation. A friend of mine believes that coal was there from the days of creation and did not come later.

It has been a long time since I studied this subject, so I have forgotten most of what I learned. I do know the KJB translators used a vast number of texts.

If I remember right it was 12 manuscripts. Today it is over 5,000.

And I believe God assisted these men to come up with an accurate translation, whether they themselves believed that or not.

God is not any different today than then.

 

[Winman]

She does not know what context is then.

No, she understood the verse for what it said. It does not agree with the KJB, if she would have been reading the KJB she would not have gotten confused.

I would say that the original likely existed. However we do not have those manuscripts. All we have is copies. At some point in time commentary was often added. The effort being made today is to determine which was text and which was commentary.

You say the original likely existed? What kind of logic is that? Of course it existed.

But you are correct, all we have is copies. Whether you believe the KJB text is correct, or if you believe the text behind the MVs is correct, you must depend upon preservation. But if all texts are corrupt, then there was no preservation. That is the definition of preservation, it prevents corruption.

If you ask me, you fellas don't believe in preservation at all. You give it lip service, but you don't really believe it. If you truly believed in preservation, you would believe one version was correct as I do. I am not saying it would have to be the KJB, but there should be one version you believe is without error if you really believe in preservation.

Jesus dealt with the same issues we have today. He does not seem to have made an issue out of it. In Mt. 19, He talked about what God wanted from the beginning. If there are mistakes in terms of it being perfect of not does not affect my faith in Christ. It does not prevent me from practicing James 1:22. The fact is that we do not much about some of the words used in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek text of the Bible. So not only do we have a textual issue but a correct usage issue.

I don't recall Jesus ever debating the accuracy of the scriptures, could you please show me this scripture?

My God is alive and he is not limited just to the words on a page.

God said he has magnified his word above his very name.

Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

You fellas do not magnify God's word, you diminish it.

Creation is a one time historical event. It cannot be proven or rejected by the scientific method. I have found some excellent modern day scholarship that points to creation. A friend of mine believes that coal was there from the days of creation and did not come later.

If I remember right it was 12 manuscripts. Today it is over 5,000.

God is not any different today than then.

Coal is easy to explain, during Noah's flood vast forests were buried. Under heat and tremendous pressure this vegatation was converted to coal and oil. They can do this in the lab.

I think you are very mistaken about the KJB translators. They had many manuscripts, many of which they rejected. They had other translations in other languages. These men were great scholars, many of whom were expert in many ancient languages.

You are proving my point, you want to argue texts, and manuscripts and all that business. As I have said several times now, this cannot be answered through scholarship. You are into scholarship, and you think commentary was added to all manuscripts. You really don't believe anything was preserved at all. That is scholarship for you!

Good luck finding that answer through scholarship.

 

[gb93433]

No, she understood the verse for what it said. It does not agree with the KJB, if she would have been reading the KJB she would not have gotten confused.

I own many translations and I find none of them confusing on that verse.

But you are correct, all we have is copies. Whether you believe the KJB text is correct, or if you believe the text behind the MVs is correct, you must depend upon preservation. But if all texts are corrupt, then there was no preservation. That is the definition of preservation, it prevents corruption.

No. Textual critics can still get back to the original text.

[/quote]If you ask me, you fellas don't believe in preservation at all. You give it lip service, but you don't really believe it. If you truly believed in preservation, you would believe one version was correct as I do. I am not saying it would have to be the KJB, but there should be one version you believe is without error if you really believe in preservation.[/quote] No English translation is 100% correct. Translate the two Spanish questions, ¿Cómo estás? and ¿Cómo está?. They are used very differently and translate the same.

[FONT=&quot]http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...wqXRCw&usg=AFQjCNGpXDBzJ5xCzsGcovEHnUoyz4-biQ[/FONT]

I don't recall Jesus ever debating the accuracy of the scriptures, could you please show me this scripture?

You are right. We also know there was more than one Greek translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the OT. The LXX was also a Greek translation done over about a three hundred year period.

God said he has magnified his word above his very name.

He also said, "For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

One of the serious problems I have with the KJV is the Anglican theology present particularly in the invented English word baptism.

Coal is easy to explain, during Noah's flood vast forests were buried. Under heat and tremendous pressure this vegatation was converted to coal and oil. They can do this in the lab.

I know a geologist who would disagree and say that it was there before Noah.

As I have said several times now, this cannot be answered through scholarship. You are into scholarship, and you think commentary was added to all manuscripts.

If you were to see the manuscripts over time you could see that for yourself. If however you want to remain the same then do not study because you may be faced with change.

The KJV is only a translation into English. No translation is perfect. English came into being as a language long after the Bible was written. So if you believe the KJV is God's gift out of the heavens then what was done before English was a language and there were many other languages around on this earth?

 

[jbh28]

No, it means a just reason and you know it.

It doesn't say that. your point is not moot.

If a stranger approached you and slugged you in the mouth, he surely had some reason to do so, but that does not mean he had a just cause or reason. Why do you make such a foolish argument? I think you know better.

It's not foolish. You have just proven my point. Thanks. Context is very important. Just like Jesus wasn't in any danger of hell when he called someone a fool.

No, the NASB gives the impression it is always wrong to be angry at another person. If someone murdered your family, you cannot be angry at them, it would be sin according to the NASB. Again, why do you cling to such foolish arguments?

Context context context.

Jesus overthrew the moneychanger's tables in the temple, according to the NASB that would be sin.

Luke 12:20. I guess God is a sinner then. He called someone a fool.

Yes, scholarship influenced my faith. It is not a blind faith. But as I keep repeating to you, there is much scholarship against the KJB. You see arguments against the KJB here all the time. So, in the end a person must decide if one of the versions is true and accurate, or they are all corrupt. It is not possible the scriptures should both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark. So, a version that includes these verses and a version that omits these verses cannot both be preserved. That is ridiculous.

No one says that the Scriptures should both contain and omit the last 12 verses. No one says that. No one. You get that. No one. No one No one! And where do you get your premise that one English version must be true and accurate? Was this premise true in 1600?

Scholarship has it's place, but we are to believe the Word of God by faith. How can any Christian not agree with this?

That's not what you have been arguing. Don't change it to make you sound good and me bad. I never disagreed about believing the Word of God by faith.

I believe the creation account by faith. If I were to base my faith on scholarship, modern science would convince me it is not true.

Me too. Why do you and I believe it? Because the Bible says so. Having one single perfect English translation is not from the Bible. Do you see the difference?

Of course they cause confusion. When I was a young boy first saved and reading the Bible, I would read these footnotes that said things like "older manuscripts omit these verses". Now I didn't know if these verses were God's words and should be listened to, or if they had been added by man. They absolutely caused me to be confused, and that is why I read many books on the subject. I simply wanted to know exactly what God said.

So you wanted to know exactly what God said. So do I. That's the point of the notes. Again, one can pretend that variants do not exist, but the fact is that they do. If it confuses you, that's your problem. Just don't look at them. But as you said, you were a young boy. You now should have matured and be able to understand that there are variants. They are there.

Of course there are variants. There are manuscripts that include the last 12 verses of Mark, and there are manuscripts that omit it. They cannot both be accurate and preserved. That is ridiculous.

Again, no one says that it should both contain and not contain. What's "ridiculous" is your straw man here. You are correct. It is either right or wrong. That's the point of textual criticism. It's to see which one is the right one. Erasmus and others did this. We do this today. Every manuscript contains variants.

It is you that believes variants can ALL be preserved, not me.

no, I believe that all the words will be preserved.

Give me a break, I am a KJB "only". I believe ONE text was correct. Show me scripture that says this view is wrong.

Show me Scripture to back up this claim. don't ask me to prove a negative. you show me the Scripture. And while your at it, show me what this "text" is.

I would say anybody who believes the scriptures should both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark is very confused whether they are aware of it or not.

Again, stop with your straw man. no one believes that.

 

[John of Japan]

John, I would bet the chances are pretty good that someone has preached to the Kurds from the KJB, though I do not know that for a fact.

Here's a dilemma for you then. Contrary to what you said, you cannot know that the KJB has been preached in every country. It is impossible. And when you assert that it has happened, then in my mind you discourage the missionary effort, thus, "Well, the Gospel has been preached everywhere, so Christ can come now. No need for missionaries anymore." I know you do not mean it that way, but that's the way it came across.

Now, I don't know for certain which text the American Bible Society used, but it says the entire New Testament was published in 1872. Chances are it was the TR and not the CT.

And I realize the preaching would have to be translated into that language and cannot be word for word.

Once again you have a dilemma. When it is translated it is no longer the KJB. It becomes a Bible in that language. Frankly, I find it ridiculous to say, "They have a KJB in their language." No, the only KJB is in English. As soon as you translate it something changes. One furlough a man in Texas asked me, "So, do you have a KJB in Japanese?" I immediately said, "No, that's in English and they speak Japanese." He said, "Oh, yeah," and saw my point.

For example, Chinese and Japanese do not have any articles. So the word "the" cannot be translated from either Greek or the KJB. Another example: the Chinese language does not have verb tenses. It uses auxiliary words for time statements. So the Chinese translations (and there are none in print from the traditional texts) all must be different from the English versions in that respect.

 

[Winman]

Here's a dilemma for you then. Contrary to what you said, you cannot know that the KJB has been preached in every country. It is impossible. And when you assert that it has happened, then in my mind you discourage the missionary effort, thus, "Well, the Gospel has been preached everywhere, so Christ can come now. No need for missionaries anymore." I know you do not mean it that way, but that's the way it came across.

John, that is not reasonable at all. Just because there were missionaries to the Kurds a hundred years ago does not mean they are never needed again. Folks are born every day. So, I was saying nothing of the sort.

Once again you have a dilemma. When it is translated it is no longer the KJB. It becomes a Bible in that language. Frankly, I find it ridiculous to say, "They have a KJB in their language." No, the only KJB is in English. As soon as you translate it something changes. One furlough a man in Texas asked me, "So, do you have a KJB in Japanese?" I immediately said, "No, that's in English and they speak Japanese." He said, "Oh, yeah," and saw my point.

Again, I think you know what I mean, the scriptures were translated from the same text as the KJB versus the Critical text. I am not a historian, but I don't think the Critical text was in wide use in 1872. From what I have read, we didn't have an English version based on the CT until 1881, so it seems very unlikely this NT for the Kurds was based on the CT.

For example, Chinese and Japanese do not have any articles. So the word "the" cannot be translated from either Greek or the KJB. Another example: the Chinese language does not have verb tenses. It uses auxiliary words for time statements. So the Chinese translations (and there are none in print from the traditional texts) all must be different from the English versions in that respect.

John, I know nothing of translating from one language to another, I do not speak any foreign language although I had two years of German in High School. But I am completely aware how one language is different from another and cannot be translated word for word.

That is not what I am saying, I am speaking of preachers going to foreign lands with the KJB preaching, and either translating themselves from learning the language, or having a translator translate for them. I have seen this before.

And as for the NT translated in 1872, I am saying chances are very good it was translated from the TR and not the CT.

Would you agree that this NT was very likely translated from the TR that produced the KJB?

 

[Winman]

I own many translations and I find none of them confusing on that verse.

That is you, not everyone is the same. This person was confused because of this verse in the NASB and posted a thread here stating she was confused about it.

No. Textual critics can still get back to the original text.

Not really. They can look at the evidence and determine what was the original text to a high probability, but not to an absolute certainty. Unless you have the originals, this is the very best you can do.

If you ask me, you fellas don't believe in preservation at all. You give it lip service, but you don't really believe it. If you truly believed in preservation, you would believe one version was correct as I do. I am not saying it would have to be the KJB, but there should be one version you believe is without error if you really believe in preservation.

No English translation is 100% correct. Translate the two Spanish questions, ¿Cómo estás? and ¿Cómo está?. They are used very differently and translate the same.

Well, you have just admitted that you don't think any English translation is correct. Good luck having faith in that.

You are right. We also know there was more than one Greek translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the OT. The LXX was also a Greek translation done over about a three hundred year period.

Oh, I'm sure there were, but they cannot all be different and all be correct. Either one is correct and the rest corrupted, or else they are all corrupt. It is not possible that they all be different and all be correct, that is ludicrous.

He also said, "For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Yes, and now imagine that he has magnified his word even above his name. Maybe makes you see the scriptures in a different light, no?

One of the serious problems I have with the KJV is the Anglican theology present particularly in the invented English word baptism.

So, what do you want me say? You have a problem with the word baptism? What does that mean?

I know a geologist who would disagree and say that it was there before Noah.

Exactly, this is why I said you cannot solve this question through scholarship. You could have scholars present evidence supporting the KJB text, another scholar will come along with evidence against it. In the end you must believe the scriptures are preserved by faith, and decide which version is that preserved Word. I guess I have said this about four or five times now, but none of you seems to be able to grasp this. You continue to look for an answer through scholarship, it isn't going to happen.

If you were to see the manuscripts over time you could see that for yourself. If however you want to remain the same then do not study because you may be faced with change.

I don't have to see the manuscripts, I have read of these issues many years ago and am quite familiar with them. What I realized that you have not come to realize is that you can study this issue for a thousand years and you will never come up with an answer.

The KJV is only a translation into English. No translation is perfect. English came into being as a language long after the Bible was written. So if you believe the KJV is God's gift out of the heavens then what was done before English was a language and there were many other languages around on this earth?

I believe the scriptures were always preserved in many languages. The KJB used these sources, not English translations only. There were also many corrupt manuscripts that had to be filtered out.

As for the KJB, I think history supports it. At the time the KJB became the dominant version in English, England became the world's first truly global super-power. England went to every continent and nearly every nation on earth, including isolated islands in the seas. And they took along the KJB. Later, America sent out missionaries across the globe using the KJB.

I do not think this happened by chance, maybe you do.

 

[Winman]

It doesn't say that. your point is not moot.

It is self-evident what it means, any person could understand it. Strong's Corcordance defines "without a cause" in Mat 5:22 to be the Greek word "eike" which is defined as;

1) inconsiderably, without purpose, without just cause

You like to play with words JBH, you missed your calling. You should be an attorney, they play with words too. You remind me of my son who tried to play word games with me when he was about 13. I told him to wash the dishes. Later I came back and he had only washed the dishes and nothing else. He said, "Well Dad, you said wash the dishes, and that is what I did."
He thought he was real smart like you think you are real smart too. I told him to wash all the dishes, the saucers, the forks, the spoons, the knives, the pots, the pans, the cups, the glasses, and any other cooking utensil. I also told him that he was assigned to do this for the next two weeks. :thumbs:

After that he had the amazing ability to understand when I said to wash the dishes that I meant everything that was used to cook and serve food. Maybe you will learn too, but I have my doubts. You are too clever to learn from others, I can tell.

It's not foolish. You have just proven my point. Thanks. Context is very important. Just like Jesus wasn't in any danger of hell when he called someone a fool.

Well, there is a difference, Jesus is God and judges rightly.

Context context context.
Luke 12:20. I guess God is a sinner then. He called someone a fool.

Again, Jesus is God and knows who believes and who does not. You and I do not know that. He could judge rightly, we cannot always do so.

No one says that the Scriptures should both contain and omit the last 12 verses. No one says that. No one. You get that. No one. No one No one! And where do you get your premise that one English version must be true and accurate? Was this premise true in 1600?

Now you are going over the top like another Calvinist poster who gets overly excited when disagreed with.

That's not what you have been arguing. Don't change it to make you sound good and me bad. I never disagreed about believing the Word of God by faith.
Me too. Why do you and I believe it? Because the Bible says so. Having one single perfect English translation is not from the Bible. Do you see the difference?

I am not trying to make you sound good or bad. I do not know your exact thoughts on this subject. All I am saying is that scholars will always disagree, so in the end, if you believe God would preserve his Word, then one version must be accurate. You must believe this by faith.

So you wanted to know exactly what God said. So do I. That's the point of the notes. Again, one can pretend that variants do not exist, but the fact is that they do. If it confuses you, that's your problem. Just don't look at them. But as you said, you were a young boy. You now should have matured and be able to understand that there are variants. They are there.

I haven't denied variants exist. But I am saying you have to make a stand on what you believe. If you truly believe God preserved his Word, then one version must be accurate. Why can't you understand this?

Again, no one says that it should both contain and not contain. What's "ridiculous" is your straw man here. You are correct. It is either right or wrong. That's the point of textual criticism. It's to see which one is the right one. Erasmus and others did this. We do this today. Every manuscript contains variants.

Well, some here have. I remember a regular poster who said he has no problem with scripture either containing or omitting these verses and that he feels the scriptures are accurate and preserved either way. I would disagree with that.

no, I believe that all the words will be preserved.

What does that mean? Are you saying as long as the word "Amen" exists that the Word of God is preserved? More word games. Do you really believe your own nonsense?

Explain exactly what you mean when you say all the words will be preserved.

Show me Scripture to back up this claim. don't ask me to prove a negative. you show me the Scripture. And while your at it, show me what this "text" is.

Oh no, you said that my view was unbiblical and unscriptural, it is up to you to provide scripture that says my view is unscriptural. I never said anything like this to you.

Again, stop with your straw man. no one believes that.

In fact, some do, as ridiculous as it seems. I could name the person, but I won't, they can identify themselves if they wish, or if you do a search in past threads you can find it. I am simply trying not to involve others without their permission in this thread.

 

[Oldtimer]

The KJV is only a translation into English. No translation is perfect. English came into being as a language long after the Bible was written. So if you believe the KJV is God's gift out of the heavens then what was done before English was a language and there were many other languages around on this earth?

As I understand it, scriptures were written in the predominate language of the time period for the applicable geographic area. As empires rose and fell, the language used by the peoples subject to them changed to the universal language of the empire(s).

Would you agree, at least to some extent, that God used the language of the day when He inspired the authors to pen His words? Would you agree that it isn't just happenstance that some scriptures were originally written in Hebrew and others in Koine Greek? (Just 2 examples)

Is it a coincidence that English emerged on a small and obscure island west of the Holy Lands where the scriptures were first written? Is it a random happening that the English language matured and the KJB emerged as the British Empire ruled the world? (I haven't looked up the exact dates, so this is an approximate timeframe for the happenings.) Is it a coincidence that the KJB helped to standardize English? (Documented in multiple sources the influence of the KJB on the evolution of English, as we know it.)

So if you believe the KJV is God's gift out of the heavens then what was done before English was a language and there were many other languages around on this earth?

Is it a coincidence that the "universal" language of the world today is English? (One example: The language used by pilots around the world.) What is the explaination, if God hasn't had a hand (a "gift" to use your words) in spreading the gospel throughout His whole earthly empire?

 

[gb93433]

This person was confused because of this verse in the NASB and posted a thread here stating she was confused about it.

? Why study when you can get all the answers with a simple reading of scripture? Even the lazy can understand that! I am sure you can use your KJV to tell us the historical background of what Jesus said in Jn 15:16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you." I am sure that understanding the background of that verse would also help one to understand why men immediately followed Jesus as is stated in Mt. 4:20 "Immediately they left their nets and followed Him." I am sure you know that the KJV takes away every bit of confusion. I am sure the KJV does even better than what scripture states in 2 Peter 3:16 about what Paul wrote.

They can look at the evidence and determine what was the original text to a high probability, but not to an absolute certainty. Unless you have the originals, this is the very best you can do.

Correct. History is not repeatable and my faith in Jesus is current. So my faith is not dependent on a 100% accurate and complete text of the original. The vast majority of early Christians could not read.

Well, you have just admitted that you don't think any English translation is correct. Good luck having faith in that.

If you have studied any language you would know that no translation is completely 100% accurate. I asked you earlier to translate two Spanish questions, ¿Cómo estás? and ¿Cómo está? Give a 100% accurate translation of both of those questions so there is no confusion. when you do that then you will understand.

So, what do you want me say? You have a problem with the word baptism? What does that mean?

A pedobaptist would because the translation of the Greek word does not agree with the translators theology. So they transliterated it rather than translated it to obscure the true meaning.

Exactly, this is why I said you cannot solve this question through scholarship. You could have scholars present evidence supporting the KJB text, another scholar will come along with evidence against it. In the end you must believe the scriptures are preserved by faith, and decide which version is that preserved Word. I guess I have said this about four or five times now, but none of you seems to be able to grasp this. You continue to look for an answer through scholarship, it isn't going to happen.

If you were an expert in American cars and someone asked you to identify a particular car then you could do it because of certain characteristics.

I don't have to see the manuscripts, I have read of these issues many years ago and am quite familiar with them. What I realized that you have not come to realize is that you can study this issue for a thousand years and you will never come up with an answer.

I feel sorry for you then because you have quit learning. I know many who are old at 30 years of age. There are people working on the issues as newly discovered manuscripts are revealed.

As for the KJB, I think history supports it. At the time the KJB became the dominant version in English, England became the world's first truly global super-power. England went to every continent and nearly every nation on earth, including isolated islands in the seas. And they took along the KJB. Later, America sent out missionaries across the globe using the KJB.

At one time China was a world power. The Muslims took countries by force. England became a power because of secular interests, resources, and pride among the English craftsmen. Long before the KJV was Luther. Long before the KJV was the Geneva Bible. Since the 1611 translation have come many revisions since.

 

[Winman]

As I understand it, scriptures were written in the predominate language of the time period for the applicable geographic area. As empires rose and fell, the language used by the peoples subject to them changed to the universal language of the empire(s).

Would you agree, at least to some extent, that God used the language of the day when He inspired the authors to pen His words? Would you agree that it isn't just happenstance that some scriptures were originally written in Hebrew and others in Koine Greek? (Just 2 examples)

Is it a coincidence that English emerged on a small and obscure island west of the Holy Lands where the scriptures were first written? Is it a random happening that the English language matured and the KJB emerged as the British Empire ruled the world? (I haven't looked up the exact dates, so this is an approximate timeframe for the happenings.) Is it a coincidence that the KJB helped to standardize English? (Documented in multiple sources the influence of the KJB on the evolution of English, as we know it.)

Is it a coincidence that the "universal" language of the world today is English? (One example: The language used by pilots around the world.) What is the explaination, if God hasn't had a hand (a "gift" to use your words) in spreading the gospel throughout His whole earthly empire?

Excellent post Oldtimer, I agree perfectly with what you wrote here. Sometimes folks cannot see the forest for the trees.