KJV: Why is it the one and others wrong?

[gb93433]

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).

That is my understanding too. I find it interesting that Greek has much less ambiguity than English.

[quote}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)[/quote]I agree.

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.)

Throughout history the dominate country has changed. Technology transfer is largely responsible for domination. Certainly God can work in any way He wants. For example it is my understanding that in Vietnam the CMA has left there because the churches are doing so well. Those churches started as a result of the Vietnam War.

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 explanation, if God hasn't had a hand (a "gift" to use your words) in spreading the gospel throughout His whole earthly empire?

If one looks back on history it is evident that Jefferson started the process with drawing scientists and inventors from around the world. A democracy such as in America is selfless and I believe God blesses that. When we become selfish that is the beginning of our decline.

 

[jbh28]

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;

I don't disagree with that being the meaning. My point was the that KJV doesn't have "just cause." Context helps you understand. Same as with the NASB.


[personal attacks will not be quoted]

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

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.

Again, I have no problem with that. The problem is I'm using the line of reasoning that says that the NASB teaches that a person who ever gets angry is sinning. It doesn't. Context rules.

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

What do you mean over the top. You said something that isn't true. no one believes that it both contains and doesn't contain.

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.

Ok, you believe God will preserve his word by faith. Very good Winman! I agree 100% with you on that! Where I have my disagreement is that you teach that "one version must be accurate." That isn't taught. There was a time before the KJV. Was the Bible preserved then? If so, then one version isn't required for God to have preserved His word. The KJV doesn't come from one single text.

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?

The reason above. What version was the accurate version before the KJV? If what you are saying is true, then there must have been a perfect text before the KJV.

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.

Well that's a little different statement. Either Mark wrote those word under the guidance of the Spirit or he did not.

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.

Ok, I will.
What is "nonsense" about what I said. I said that all the words will be preserved. Do you disagree or agree? It means that every single word that God breathed will be preserved. It will never perish. That's what the Bible teaches. I believe it by faith. While we have variants in the manuscripts, the words of God will never be lost.

Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 24:35 both teach that the words will be preserved.

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.

It's unbiblical because what you are saying isn't in the Bible. Again, the burden of proof is on you. I gave my Scripture to backup my beliefs, but no passage exists that says what you are saying. If it does, you should be able to give the Bible passage. So please, share with us the Bible passage that you are using that says one version must be true. And tell us what this text was before the KJV. The problem is that there wasn't one text before the KJV. You have no Scripture to support this claim.

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.

ok, well no one here discussing this believes it. I've never seen anyone say that Mark did and didn't write those words. I think you may have misunderstood, but without seeing the original quote I can't say.

Here's what it boils down to.

* The words will be preserved (Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 24:35)
* The words are God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21).
* The words are truth and therefore inerrant (John 17:17, Psalms 119:151,160).

The KJV doesn't come from a single text. Having a perfect text or perfect version is not required for preservation. If it were, then the Bible wouldn't have been preserved in 1600. We know of course that isn't true.

 

[Winman]

? 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.

A new Christian has to start somewhere, they do not immediately understand all the scripture. Most new converts will start with the four gospels, not doctrinal books like Ephesians. They are going to run across Mat 5:22 right away and be misled by the NASB. It may be years before they study Ephesians.

Just because you were not confused by Mat 5:22 does not mean others aren't, when in fact they are as has been demonstrated right here at BB.

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.

For me that is a contradiction. I cannot have faith in that which I consider flawed. But that is me.

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.

I do not speak Spanish, so I cannot address these words. I also cannot speak ancient Greek or Hebrew, so I must rely upon English translations. I have faith in God that he would provide me an accurate translation in English.

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.

I don't know about all that. But I think it is clear that they baptized by immersion in the scriptures, such as the story of the Ethopian eunuch, and that only one who believes can be baptized.

By the way, some MVs omit Acts 8:37 (NIV, ESV) which would show baptizing babies unscriptural. Yes, I know they are shown in the footnotes, but this casts doubt on their validity.

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.

That is a poor analogy, we have at a minimum photographs of probably every car ever made, and many still exist. We HAVE the originals.

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.

And I feel sorry for you because you are ever learning.

2 Tim 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

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.

So what? As Oldtimer pointed out, over the centuries English has become the predominant language of the world. As he also pointed out, the KJB had a direct influence on the English language. If you want to ignore that just as the KJB became the dominant version of scripture the English empire spread across the world, and the influence of America afterwards, go ahead. It is plain as day.

It's all just a big coincidence, right?

 

[gb93433]

A new Christian has to start somewhere, they do not immediately understand all the scripture. Most new converts will start with the four gospels, not doctrinal books like Ephesians. They are going to run across Mat 5:22 right away and be misled by the NASB. It may be years before they study Ephesians.

When I first became a believer I read and read. Did not have a concordance or any study tools. For the first three years I just read. My Bible was falling apart by that time. It is amazing what one learns through just reading.

[/quote]For me that is a contradiction. I cannot have faith in that which I consider flawed. [/quote] If you believe that then do not ever try to reach anyone because they will fail you. Do not ever teach anyone because you will make mistakes. If you have faith in the KJV then you have a misplaced faith. Scripture teaches that our faith is to be in Jesus. There was more than one Bible around when Jesus was living. As time went by there were more and more. I am unable to find the message that Jesus ever taught revolved around translations or any particular Bible. Satan loves to distract people from the real job of making disciples. While people are arguing about translation there are others who use the one they have and reach others in making disciples.

I do not speak Spanish, so I cannot address these words. I also cannot speak ancient Greek or Hebrew, so I must rely upon English translations. I have faith in God that he would provide me an accurate translation in English.

Do a google search and see what you find. It will help you a lot to better understand translation. I gave you two good questions to translate that are easy and will quickly give you a glimpse of what translation is all about.

The fact is that the translators of the Bible do not always know much about a particular Hebrew or Greek word. Some of the words they are knowing more about as they discover libraries and other documents. It was not very long ago that NY Greek was called Holy Ghost Greek.

If things were always so clear then we would not need teachers.

I don't know about all that. But I think it is clear that they baptized by immersion in the scriptures, such as the story of the Ethopian eunuch, and that only one who believes can be baptized.

The correct translation would be they immersed not baptized. Baptized is an invented word. If one goes back before the days of a PC a computer was something else. In Finland it is translated "thinking machine." So which is it? Does it compute or does it think?

That is a poor analogy, we have at a minimum photographs of probably every car ever made, and many still exist. We HAVE the originals.

We have manuscripts from which we can determine with a high level or probability what the original text was. Manuscripts are dated according to knowledge and findings. People who do that work are involved in learning as they live. Each generation builds on the work of the previous generation.

And I feel sorry for you because you are ever learning.

Where does that place Paul? Where does you statement place ignorance?

So would you suggest that one remain ignorant and teach from a well of ignorance? So would you suggest that one never learn how to make disciples by remaining ignorant.

If people had chosen to not learn we would still be walking everywhere.

"A sharp ax cuts more wood."

About two years ago I was able to reach a man who listened to people who were atheists. After about five hours with him he decided to follow Jesus. Most of my discussion with him was about textual criticism. My relationship with God is a relationship and trust in the God who is not trust in a manuscript.

As Oldtimer pointed out, over the centuries English has become the predominant language of the world. As he also pointed out, the KJB had a direct influence on the English language. If you want to ignore that just as the KJB became the dominant version of scripture the English empire spread across the world, and the influence of America afterwards, go ahead. It is plain as day.

Compare that to all the other translations available around the world. Dominant?

The best Bible to have is the one you own. So read it, study it and make disciples, and reach the city you live in. If you spend your life focusing on a translation you will come to the end of your life with nothing.

 

[Salty]

So what? As Oldtimer pointed out, over the centuries English has become the predominant language of the world. As he also pointed out, the KJB had a direct influence on the English language. If you want to ignore that just as the KJB became the dominant version of scripture the English empire spread across the world, and the influence of America afterwards, go ahead. It is plain as day.

It's all just a big coincidence, right?

and now other MV are becoming the dominant version of scripture. According to sales that is

 

[John of Japan]

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.

As I said, I didn't think you meant that.

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.

Actually, by 1872 there were several influential Greek NTs that were being used. Lachman and Tischendorf had seen their critical Greek NTs having influence. Alford had finished his commentary on the Greek NT with many critical readings. Scholz's Greek NT, not quite the TR though close to it, was widely distributed. (I have one from about 1835.) Any one of these could have been used in 1872, and sometimes were. The only way to prove that the translations done in those days were from the received texts would be to examine them carefully in each language.

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.

I suggest that you should be more careful in your wording, and not claim that the KJB has been preached in every language. Ruckman started that story, and it is patently false.

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?

Chances are it were. However, there is also a good chance that it was not. Let me explain.

First of all, the very first Japanese NT, completed by Nathan Brown in 1878, said on the cover that it was "from the oldest existing Greek manuscripts." Again, I had read in the history books that the Moto Yaku ("Original Translation", NT in1880, OT in 1887), the first complete Japanese Bible, was done from the KJV, consulting the TR, Chinese Bible, etc. However, just last year I had someone call me on that so I checked myself and there are important verses omitted in the Moto Yaku of 1880 (and the translation work took many years). So by that time there were already influences from the critical texts on the mission fields of the world, meaning you cannot state categorically that in 1872 a translation on a mission field was definitely from the received texts.

 

[Oldtimer]

When I first became a believer I read and read. Did not have a concordance or any study tools. For the first three years I just read. My Bible was falling apart by that time. It is amazing what one learns through just reading.

For me that is a contradiction. I cannot have faith in that which I consider flawed.

If you believe that then do not ever try to reach anyone because they will fail you. Do not ever teach anyone because you will make mistakes. If you have faith in the KJV then you have a misplaced faith. Scripture teaches that our faith is to be in Jesus. There was more than one Bible around when Jesus was living. As time went by there were more and more. I am unable to find the message that Jesus ever taught revolved around translations or any particular Bible. Satan loves to distract people from the real job of making disciples. While people are arguing about translation there are others who use the one they have and reach others in making disciples.

Do a google search and see what you find. It will help you a lot to better understand translation. I gave you two good questions to translate that are easy and will quickly give you a glimpse of what translation is all about.

The fact is that the translators of the Bible do not always know much about a particular Hebrew or Greek word. Some of the words they are knowing more about as they discover libraries and other documents. It was not very long ago that NY Greek was called Holy Ghost Greek.

If things were always so clear then we would not need teachers.

The correct translation would be they immersed not baptized. Baptized is an invented word. If one goes back before the days of a PC a computer was something else. In Finland it is translated "thinking machine." So which is it? Does it compute or does it think?

We have manuscripts from which we can determine with a high level or probability what the original text was. Manuscripts are dated according to knowledge and findings. People who do that work are involved in learning as they live. Each generation builds on the work of the previous generation.

Where does that place Paul? Where does you statement place ignorance?

So would you suggest that one remain ignorant and teach from a well of ignorance? So would you suggest that one never learn how to make disciples by remaining ignorant.
If people had chosen to not learn we would still be walking everywhere.

"A sharp ax cuts more wood."

About two years ago I was able to reach a man who listened to people who were atheists. After about five hours with him he decided to follow Jesus. Most of my discussion with him was about textual criticism. My relationship with God is a relationship and trust in the God who is not trust in a manuscript.

Compare that to all the other translations available around the world. Dominant?

The best Bible to have is the one you own. So read it, study it and make disciples, and reach the city you live in. If you spend your life focusing on a translation you will come to the end of your life with nothing.

GB, your last point first.

FWIW, as I've stated before, I was away from the church for more years than I'd care to admit. :tear: When the Lord called me back into His fold, I couldn't read the tiny print in my Bible. Based on a friend's recommendation, bought a large print NIV. Joined a Bible study class with perhaps a half dozen versions among the members of the class. Hearing scriptures read aloud brought about even more questions than my own generated from the NIV. The end result was that I began to research why there was so much "confusion" about God's word. Discovered the KJVO debate and oh, so much more. My constant prayer was (is) that the Holy Spirit will guide me (a novice, a rank beginner) through this maze of opinions.

Your last point really struck home, but from a little different standpoint than what you probably intended. Early on in my studies, I was amazed at the venom used by Christians to attack other Christians over Bible versions. Not that it happened, as "trolls" and such have been around since the days of 1200 baud modems. Most of my amazement came from who resorted to this. Pastors, professors, scholars -- the very people -- shepards -- I was seeking to learn from in my quest for understanding (Proverbs 2:3-6 and 2 Tim 2:15).

Later, as I studied more history of the Bible and such, I gradually became aware of how often the Lord is left out of the picture. His word is being treated as if it were a secular book on making sausage or BBQ. How much sage? White sauce or red sauce with or without tomato products? Charcoal vs propane brings out all the "experts". Even lump charcoal vs pressed brings out the bashers on both sides. I don't expect Christian respect for brothers in Christ in those discussions. Yet, I yearn for more of it, as it's often sadly lacking with regards to the KJVO issue.

In closing on this point, are you saying that all those who have spent their lives and sometimes given their lives for a translation did it for nothing? I agree, that we should put reading our Bible first. In your opinion, does that also include the New World Translation?

Re: Using on-line translation programs. I did that when I worked a Help Desk answering email questions. There isn't enough space here to fully describe the problems when a person isn't fluent in both languages involved. Yet, I see over and over again that we should be using on-line dictionaries and such in other languages to "rightly divide the word". IMHO, they are useful tools, especially for scholars who spend their lifetimes studying a translation(s).

In closing, I'm in full agreement with you that satan is using this controversy to his full advantage. That's the other point that has emerged from my studies. A true born again Christian knows the basis of their faith isn't a printed document. Yet, many want to imply that defending a particular document is treating that document as an idol. And object of misplaced faith. The sad part is this is often done for a self serving purpose when the whole context of the conversation is taken in context.

Oh, one more point. I keep seeing references to ignorance in various discussions. If someone is "ignorant" they can't bring others to Christ. My father couldn't read or write his name. Yet, his walk with Christ was apparent to all who got to know him. His life was a better "witness" to the Lord than some pastors I've heard in the pulpit. Strong statement. Yes. My Dad's was called home 32 years ago. A while back I met an old gentleman who knew my father. This gentleman remembered and testified to the faith he saw in my Dad's life all these years later. Even "ignorant" men can bring others to Christ, where the Holy Spirit can take over and "instruct" them.

Finally, may the Lord forgive me if the time I've taken here could have been better used in another way in His service this morning.

 

[thomas15]

Oldtimer,

I don't mean to offend but the problem is that the debate we are talking about has a tendency to use human emotion as the it's main point not literary fact.

And not to take anything from your Dad's witness for Christ but imaginine the witness of the adult individual, unable to read, who for no other reason but to simply read the Bible for himself overcomes this problem and learns to read and write?

 

[glfredrick]

I find most of the "venom" comes from those who hold up the KJV (as a fallacy argument) and suggest that IT is the version to which ALL OTHERS must be compared.

Those who are KJV preferred, or who use another version but who can also see the history and usefulness of the KJV rarely have the same "do or die" mindset on this issue that generates "venom." It is those who INSIST that there is NO other text than the KJV that are the problem, and they cannot even back up their claims without tossing aside everything that is known about Bible translations or church history, i.e., which Bible was THE Bible before 1611 or why was the KJV plagurized from other prior English versions?

 

[DaChaser1]

I find most of the "venom" comes from those who hold up the KJV (as a fallacy argument) and suggest that IT is the version to which ALL OTHERS must be compared.

Those who are KJV preferred, or who use another version but who can also see the history and usefulness of the KJV rarely have the same "do or die" mindset on this issue that generates "venom." It is those who INSIST that there is NO other text than the KJV that are the problem, and they cannot even back up their claims without tossing aside everything that is known about Bible translations or church history, i.e., which Bible was THE Bible before 1611 or why was the KJV plagurized from other prior English versions?

IF the KJV is able to be used to correct allegd mistakes in ole TR, as the KJV IS theperfect preserved word of God to us, how could it come thru an imperfect Greek text source than?

 

[gb93433]

Later, as I studied more history of the Bible and such, I gradually became aware of how often the Lord is left out of the picture. His word is being treated as if it were a secular book on making sausage or BBQ. How much sage?

I think you are so right.

In closing on this point, are you saying that all those who have spent their lives and sometimes given their lives for a translation did it for nothing?

Not at all but there are so many more important things. The application of James 1:22 comes first. There are those who have devoted themselves to the task of accurate translation. I do not know any of them who operate in a closet though. There are those who are not believers who have devoted themselves to the study of the text and do not believe it or are deceived.

Re: Using on-line translation programs. I did that when I worked a Help Desk answering email questions. There isn't enough space here to fully describe the problems when a person isn't fluent in both languages involved. Yet, I see over and over again that we should be using on-line dictionaries and such in other languages to "rightly divide the word". IMHO, they are useful tools, especially for scholars who spend their lifetimes studying a translation(s).

I think we have so many excellent resources available to us today that there is no excuse for one who does not get help.

Oh, one more point. I keep seeing references to ignorance in various discussions. If someone is "ignorant" they can't bring others to Christ. My father couldn't read or write his name. Yet, his walk with Christ was apparent to all who got to know him. His life was a better "witness" to the Lord than some pastors I've heard in the pulpit. Strong statement. Yes. My Dad's was called home 32 years ago. A while back I met an old gentleman who knew my father. This gentleman remembered and testified to the faith he saw in my Dad's life all these years later. Even "ignorant" men can bring others to Christ, where the Holy Spirit can take over and "instruct" them.

You are absolutely right. However if one is able I think the person should do everything possible to grow in both the grace and knowledge of Jesus. I have seen too many who use that as an excuse when they are far more capable but rather lazy.

 

[Salty]

John of Japan - I have a question in reference to the Japanese translations.

Does it have the controversial last few verses of the Gospel of Mark? If not, could you expound?

Thanks, Salty

 

[John of Japan]

John of Japan - I have a question in reference to the Japanese translations.

Does it have the controversial last few verses of the Gospel of Mark? If not, could you expound?

Thanks, Salty

The main Japanese translations have the passage in brackets, like the typical English MV does. Which brings up the interesting point of God's preservation. If the traditional ending of Mark was not in the original, then why do all versions include it, even if it is in brackets? Could it be that the Lord led them to do so? Might make an interesting thread. (Don't have time myself to start one right now.)

 

[glfredrick]

For those decrying the leaving out of the Lord in some of the newer translations, you should investigate the number of times the name of Jesus is used in the NIV. I believe that you will find it used multiples of more times than in the KJV, which translates the personal pronoun instead. The translators wished that readers who might be ignorant of whom was actually saying those words know that it was in fact Jesus.

 

[glfredrick]

The main Japanese translations have the passage in brackets, like the typical English MV does. Which brings up the interesting point of God's preservation. If the traditional ending of Mark was not in the original, then why do all versions include it, even if it is in brackets? Could it be that the Lord led them to do so? Might make an interesting thread. (Don't have time myself to start one right now.)

Does the long ending of Mark contain any doctrine that the church would loose, or that would otherwise be unknown if the verses were not in the original text? And, have the verses led to any excesses in the church whereby God was mocked by efforts akin to those of the devil in his temptation of Christ in the wilderness, i.e., "proof-texting" to a conclusion not generally supported by the overall context of Scripture, as Jesus so eloquently pointed out to the devil?

 

[thomas15]

I find most of the "venom" comes from those who hold up the KJV (as a fallacy argument) and suggest that IT is the version to which ALL OTHERS must be compared.

Those who are KJV preferred, or who use another version but who can also see the history and usefulness of the KJV rarely have the same "do or die" mindset on this issue that generates "venom." It is those who INSIST that there is NO other text than the KJV that are the problem, and they cannot even back up their claims without tossing aside everything that is known about Bible translations or church history, i.e., which Bible was THE Bible before 1611 or why was the KJV plagurized from other prior English versions?

Exactly right. My experience has been thus;

I have been in non-KJVO churches with both the KJV and modern versions. No one was critical of which ever translation I had on that day.

I have been in KJVO churches with a MV and heard negative comments on my MV. Again, my experience is that negative comments on my translation of the day only come to me in KJVO churches.

 

[John of Japan]

Does the long ending of Mark contain any doctrine that the church would loose, or that would otherwise be unknown if the verses were not in the original text? And, have the verses led to any excesses in the church whereby God was mocked by efforts akin to those of the devil in his temptation of Christ in the wilderness, i.e., "proof-texting" to a conclusion not generally supported by the overall context of Scripture, as Jesus so eloquently pointed out to the devil?

Sorry, I don't do textual criticism on the basis of these issues. They are irrelevant to textual criticism. (I suggest the excellent Perspectives on the Longer Ending of Mark, ed. by David Alan Black. Both Robinson and Black are strong for the longer ending in this book, with Black being an eclectic.)

But to answer your question somewhat, in particular I'd hate to lose the unique statement of the Great Commission in v. 15. Again, Richard Wurmbrand told (Tortured for Christ) of being challenged concerning the poison statement by a Communist prison guard. Wurmbrand drank the poison in faith and was unaffected.

 

[glfredrick]

I know about the issues. Just posing the questions...

I've read the stuff you suggest.

 

[DaChaser1]

For those decrying the leaving out of the Lord in some of the newer translations, you should investigate the number of times the name of Jesus is used in the NIV. I believe that you will find it used multiples of more times than in the KJV, which translates the personal pronoun instead. The translators wished that readers who might be ignorant of whom was actually saying those words know that it was in fact Jesus.

Think what is amusing on this is that believeBOTh the NASB/NIV actually reference Jesus as being Christ/Lord/messiah/Christ etc MORE times than the ole KJV does, so why would satan inspire MORE glory being given to jesus than less?

 

[glfredrick]

Think what is amusing on this is that believeBOTh the NASB/NIV actually reference Jesus as being Christ/Lord/messiah/Christ etc MORE times than the ole KJV does, so why would satan inspire MORE glory being given to jesus than less?

Not sure, but perhaps the answer is in the italicized words in the KJV -- you know -- the ones they had to insert that were not in the original text to make it readable. :laugh: