KJV: Why is it the one and others wrong?

[Salty]

You know what, you are exactly right. Also, I am so greatful Amazing Grace it part of the Psalms that the early church sang at services.

Yes, most people do not know it is Psalm 151

 

[Salty]

...Either one version of the scriptures is correct and the others wrong, or they are all wrong. They cannot all be right, because they are all different. ...

Is a pocket New Testament any less the Holy Scripture, because it does not have the Old Testament?

... If the scriptures were translated into any other language properly from the same text, then they would be the Word of God in that language. ...

and that is what is so tricky - translation!

For example Germans have an appliance in the kitchen to keep food cold - it is called a Kühlschrank, a literal translation would be cool (or cold) storage. But if you were translating wouldn't it be better to use the non-literal word refrigerator ?


I have an ideal, why dont all Christians learn Greek, than our pastors can just preach out of the Greek NT!

 

[Baptist4life]

Well, I can only say it was footnotes like this that made me investgate the subject in the first place. I simply wanted to know what God said. Did God really say the last 12 verses or Mark or not? It cannot be possible that the scriptures should both contain and omit these verses.

Either one version of the scriptures is correct and the others wrong, or they are all wrong. They cannot all be right, because they are all different.

I believe the whole purpose of the scriptures is for God to communicate with man over the most important issue in life, whether we are saved or lost for eternity. I believe God would preserve and protect his Word. I believe his Word would be a reflection of himself and be without error.

So, I came to the conclusion that ONE version must be correct. You may disagree, but that is what I believe. After much prayer and study I came to believe the KJB is the correct version in English. If the scriptures were translated into any other language properly from the same text, then they would be the Word of God in that language.

This can never be settled through scholarship, that is why I will not get bogged down in a debate. Folks have to choose for themselves what they believe.

I agree! Well stated!

 

[franklinmonroe]

... So, I came to the conclusion that ONE version must be correct. ...

What do you mean by "correct"?

 

[glfredrick]

What do you mean by "correct"?

And how can YOU know when so many who are so expert in the field cannot?

 

[jbh28]

I am one of those loathed and despised KJB "onlies". I do not accept other versions because they are based on another text.

It is not possible that the Word of God should both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark. That is impossible. These verses should either be there, or they should not be there. There is no middle ground.

I only point out these 12 verses because they are the most well known and famous difference between the two texts. There are many other differences between the texts besides these 12 verses.

I will not get bogged down in a big debate over this, but this is why I do not accept the MVs.

Which translations don't have that last 12 verses of Mark? The answer is they all have them(well the ones that we use).

 

[jbh28]

Well, I can only say it was footnotes like this that made me investgate the subject in the first place. I simply wanted to know what God said. Did God really say the last 12 verses or Mark or not? It cannot be possible that the scriptures should both contain and omit these verses.

And most(all the ones that we use) contain the last 12 verses. The debate isn't really over if Jesus had this conversation or not. The debate is over is if Mark included it in his gospel. Most translations put a footnote to let the reader know there's a variant here and include the words.

Either one version of the scriptures is correct and the others wrong, or they are all wrong. They cannot all be right, because they are all different.

Yes and no. It's possible to have more than one correct translation of a word. I know what you are saying. You are saying on the variants that one is right and one is wrong. That's true. What's not true is saying one version has to always have gotten this right.

I believe the whole purpose of the scriptures is for God to communicate with man over the most important issue in life, whether we are saved or lost for eternity. I believe God would preserve and protect his Word. I believe his Word would be a reflection of himself and be without error.

Of course! The Bible is preserved. The Bible is without error.

So, I came to the conclusion that ONE version must be correct. You may disagree, but that is what I believe. After much prayer and study I came to believe the KJB is the correct version in English. If the scriptures were translated into any other language properly from the same text, then they would be the Word of God in that language.

The problem is that you are believing that an English translation of the Scriptures has to be perfect. Such is not required for preservation nor inerrancy of the Scriptures. The Bible is just as preserved as it was before there was an English translation.

This can never be settled through scholarship, that is why I will not get bogged down in a debate.

Well, scholarship is what brought us the KJV. The great scholars that translated the KJV used scholarship.

Folks have to choose for themselves what they believe.

yes.

 

[Winman]

And most(all the ones that we use) contain the last 12 verses. The debate isn't really over if Jesus had this conversation or not. The debate is over is if Mark included it in his gospel. Most translations put a footnote to let the reader know there's a variant here and include the words.

Well of course there are many conversations the Lord had that are not included in the scriptures, who would disagree with that? The issue is whether these particular 12 verses should be included in the scriptures or not. They should either be there, or they should not be there. It is not possible that the scriptures should both contain AND omit these verses. And of course, there are many verses besides these 12, these are mentioned only for argument's sake.

Yes and no. It's possible to have more than one correct translation of a word. I know what you are saying. You are saying on the variants that one is right and one is wrong. That's true. What's not true is saying one version has to always have gotten this right.
Of course! The Bible is preserved. The Bible is without error.

While it is true that more than one word can convey the same meaning, that is not the issue. Oftentimes verses between the Critical Text and the KJB text convey very different meanings. A famous example would be Mat 5:22.

KJB- Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

The KJB says whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. Many MVs omit "without a cause" but include it in the footnotes such as the NIV and the ESV. Some omit this phrase altogether such as the NASB.

NASB- Mat 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be *guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, '*You good-for-nothing,' shall be *guilty before *the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be *guilty enough to go into the *fiery hell.

Now, I do not own a NASB, but looking at Blue Letter Bible I do not see the phrase "without cause" included in the footnotes. So this version gives a very different meaning than the KJB. The KJB lets us know that it is alright to be angry at another person for a just reason, for example, if someone broke into your house and stole all your belongings. The NASB gives the impression that it is wrong to be angry at your fellow man for any reason, and that you could come into judgment for this.

So, that is a real difference.

The problem is that you are believing that an English translation of the Scriptures has to be perfect. Such is not required for preservation nor inerrancy of the Scriptures. The Bible is just as preserved as it was before there was an English translation.

Yes, as I said before, I believe the entire purpose of the scriptures is for God to communicate with us, and I believe the scriptures would reflect God and be without error. I also believe that God is still working in the world and brought about the English scriptures, just as England became the first global super-power, taking the scriptures to every continent, and nearly every nation on earth.

Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Now, I know there are countries that do not have scriptures based on the KJB text, but there have been missionaries who have preached from the KJB in every nation on earth as Mat 24:14 said would happen.

Well, scholarship is what brought us the KJV. The great scholars that translated the KJV used scholarship.

yes.

Well, of course scholarship brought forth the KJB as it did every version, that is not what I am saying.

What I am saying is that you have scholars who can make arguments for the KJB, and you can find scholars who make arguments against the KJB. When all is said and done, you must choose what you believe by faith.

It is like those footnotes that say "older manuscripts omit this verse". OK, how does that help? All that does is introduce doubt. Take a stand, either believe it, or choose not to believe it, but don't throw your hands up in the air and say you don't know.

The fellows who publish the MVs should make a stand. Either include the verse, or leave it out. Make up your mind.

Jam 1:6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

Jam 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Now, I know I pulled these verses out of context, but the principle is the same. Make up your mind what you believe. Saying a verse "may or may not" supposed to be in the text only introduces doubt and instability.

I believe God would preserve his Word and it would be without error. I fully trust the KJB. I have made up my mind what I believe, based on what the scriptures reveal about God. God is not the author of confusion.

1 Cor 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

You will never understand KJB onlies unless you understand we believe the KJB by faith, not scholarship.

 

[glfredrick]

Winman... We can't argue with that! :thumbs:

























Because there is no argument that can halt intentional ignorance! :BangHead:

 

[slave 4 Christ]

Yes, as I said before, I believe the entire purpose of the scriptures is for God to communicate with us, and I believe the scriptures would reflect God and be without error. I also believe that God is still working in the world and brought about the English scriptures, just as England became the first global super-power, taking the scriptures to every continent, and nearly every nation on earth.

It is amazing that one who dismisses Calvinism as heretical would claim the KJV is the only acceptable translation.
It is a fact that the vast majority of KJ translators were Calvinists.

Winman you have a problem....if an evil tree cannot produce good fruit, then you are depending on a corrupt version.

Now, either you must change your view about Calvinism, or change your version.

 

[jbh28]

Well of course there are many conversations the Lord had that are not included in the scriptures, who would disagree with that? The issue is whether these particular 12 verses should be included in the scriptures or not. They should either be there, or they should not be there. It is not possible that the scriptures should both contain AND omit these verses. And of course, there are many verses besides these 12, these are mentioned only for argument's sake.

That's exactly what I just said.

While it is true that more than one word can convey the same meaning, that is not the issue. Oftentimes verses between the Critical Text and the KJB text convey very different meanings. A famous example would be Mat 5:22.

KJB- Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

The KJB says whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. Many MVs omit "without a cause" but include it in the footnotes such as the NIV and the ESV. Some omit this phrase altogether such as the NASB.

NASB- Mat 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be *guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, '*You good-for-nothing,' shall be *guilty before *the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be *guilty enough to go into the *fiery hell.

Now, I do not own a NASB, but looking at Blue Letter Bible I do not see the phrase "without cause" included in the footnotes. So this version gives a very different meaning than the KJB. The KJB lets us know that it is alright to be angry at another person for a just reason, for example, if someone broke into your house and stole all your belongings. The NASB gives the impression that it is wrong to be angry at your fellow man for any reason, and that you could come into judgment for this.

1. No body gets angry without a cause. If you do, you need serious help if you all of a sudden get angry for no reason at all.
2. Both are saying the same thing. The KJV isn't teaching that as long as you have a "cause" for being angry it's ok.

Yes, as I said before, I believe the entire purpose of the scriptures is for God to communicate with us, and I believe the scriptures would reflect God and be without error. I also believe that God is still working in the world and brought about the English scriptures, just as England became the first global super-power, taking the scriptures to every continent, and nearly every nation on earth.

Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Now, I know there are countries that do not have scriptures based on the KJB text, but there have been missionaries who have preached from the KJB in every nation on earth as Mat 24:14 said would happen.

And your point? This in no way proves the KJV is always right. It in no way proves that one translation has to be perfect. That's just pure fiction. The Bible never teaches any such thing.

Well, of course scholarship brought forth the KJB as it did every version, that is not what I am saying.

What I am saying is that you have scholars who can make arguments for the KJB, and you can find scholars who make arguments against the KJB. When all is said and done, you must choose what you believe by faith.

No, it's still by scholarship. You are choosing the KJV based on the evidence you have seen. Faith is just a smokescreen.

It is like those footnotes that say "older manuscripts omit this verse". OK, how does that help? All that does is introduce doubt. Take a stand, either believe it, or choose not to believe it, but don't throw your hands up in the air and say you don't know.

oh, like the KJV did.....

The fellows who publish the MVs should make a stand. Either include the verse, or leave it out. Make up your mind.

They do. They either leave it in or take it out. They have a footnote because they are being honest that there is a major variant in the passage. The KJV did this as well.

I believe God would preserve his Word and it would be without error. I fully trust the KJB. I have made up my mind what I believe, based on what the scriptures reveal about God. God is not the author of confusion.

I believe God will perfectly preserve his word. The Bible says so. What it doesn't say is it will be in one single translation. That's something that is not found in the Bible.

1 Cor 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

You will never understand KJB onlies unless you understand we believe the KJB by faith, not scholarship.

It's by scholarship. It cannot be faith as the Bible doesn't teach it. The Bible teaches that the Scripture is perfect, God breathed and will be preserved. It does not teach that one single translation would be perfect. The Bible was just as inerrant in 1600 as it is today. There was no kjv in 1611. Its' not a matter of faith. I have faith in what the Bible says, not in what it doesn't say.

 

[Grasshopper]

This can never be settled through scholarship, that is why I will not get bogged down in a debate. Folks have to choose for themselves what they believe.

This sums up KJVonlyism.

 

[John of Japan]

Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Now, I know there are countries that do not have scriptures based on the KJB text, but there have been missionaries who have preached from the KJB in every nation on earth as Mat 24:14 said would happen.

Sorry, this is not true. There are still 2000 languages, 340,000,000 people with no Scriptures. This includes people groups like certain Chinese groups who I believe would be Biblical "nations."

Beyond that, there are modern nations which have never had a KJV-type Bible (trans. from the TR or KJVP). This would probably include all nations where the only translation done has been by Wycliffe people post WW2. It includes people groups such as the Kurds. Beyond that, there are many, many nations that have never had a KJVO missionary in them.

In Japan, there has only ever been one NT from the TR, and it is in Classical Japanese. I only know one man who ever made it the Bible of his church (Dan Fujii, now dead). This is contra Ruckman. A Ruckmanite pastor once told a friend of mine, a missionary to Japan for many years, that he was a liar when he said we had no "Japanese KJB" because Ruckman said we did. :BangHead:

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Yes, most people do not know it is Psalm 151

There is a Psalm 151....in the Septuagint.

 

[Forest]

I've seen people mentioned things along the lines of the subject line here, and had it mentioned to me multiple times.

I've always brushed it off and gone about my life. I have 3 Bibles I look at on a consistent basis: KJV, NKJV, and NASB. But I guess I don't get why one is THE one, and the others are a "perversion"...if you will.

I do realize that some translations aren't word for word, but thought translations, but leaving those out...someone tell me why the KJV is the only one?

One difference that I have detected is that the KJV in Gal 2:16 says "faith of Christ" and some versions have changed the wording to say "faith in Christ", which changes the faith to be man's faith instead of Christ's faith (faithfulness). Man's faith does not justify himself, but man is justified by the faithfulness of Christ, Christ's faith. The reason for the change in my openion is that man wants to take credit for his salvation instead of giving the credit to God.

 

[jbh28]

One difference that I have detected is that the KJV in Gal 2:16 says "faith of Christ" and some versions have changed the wording to say "faith in Christ", which changes the faith to be man's faith instead of Christ's faith (faithfulness). Man's faith does not justify himself, but man is justified by the faithfulness of Christ, Christ's faith. The reason for the change in my openion is that man wants to take credit for his salvation instead of giving the credit to God.

Faith in Christ is actually correct. Even the KJV has this in some places. Man does have faith. Christ doesn't need faith.

Nobody is trying to take credit. The reason it's translated differently is because "in" is more correct.

Faith is a gift form God. Christ doesn't need faith because he knows everything. How can you have faith if you are all knowing? The difference is between Subjective Genitive and Objective Genitive.

Note the KJV's inconsistency...
vs 22: πιστεως ιησου KJV: "faith of Jesus"
vs 26: πιστεως ιησου KJV: "believeth in Jesus"

The NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV,

"To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."

so faith in Jesus is doctrinally sound regardless of how one translates vs 22.

 

[glfredrick]

Thou forgetesteth theeith maineth pointeth, that thy KJV'th correcteth alleth &c verthions verywith eveneth theeist Greeketh and Hebrewish verthions.

Thou shalt not-eth winnest theeith argumentum...

 

[Winman]

Sorry, this is not true. There are still 2000 languages, 340,000,000 people with no Scriptures. This includes people groups like certain Chinese groups who I believe would be Biblical "nations."

Beyond that, there are modern nations which have never had a KJV-type Bible (trans. from the TR or KJVP). This would probably include all nations where the only translation done has been by Wycliffe people post WW2. It includes people groups such as the Kurds. Beyond that, there are many, many nations that have never had a KJVO missionary in them.

In Japan, there has only ever been one NT from the TR, and it is in Classical Japanese. I only know one man who ever made it the Bible of his church (Dan Fujii, now dead). This is contra Ruckman. A Ruckmanite pastor once told a friend of mine, a missionary to Japan for many years, that he was a liar when he said we had no "Japanese KJB" because Ruckman said we did. :BangHead:

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".

 

[glfredrick]

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;

 

[Winman]

That's exactly what I just said.

OK, for once we are agreed.

1. No body gets angry without a cause. If you do, you need serious help if you all of a sudden get angry for no reason at all.
2. Both are saying the same thing. The KJV isn't teaching that as long as you have a "cause" for being angry it's ok.

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.

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.

And your point? This in no way proves the KJV is always right. It in no way proves that one translation has to be perfect. That's just pure fiction. The Bible never teaches any such thing.

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.

No, it's still by scholarship. You are choosing the KJV based on the evidence you have seen. Faith is just a smokescreen.

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?

oh, like the KJV did.....

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 do. They either leave it in or take it out. They have a footnote because they are being honest that there is a major variant in the passage. The KJV did this as well.
I believe God will perfectly preserve his word. The Bible says so. What it doesn't say is it will be in one single translation. That's something that is not found in the Bible.

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

It's by scholarship. It cannot be faith as the Bible doesn't teach it. The Bible teaches that the Scripture is perfect, God breathed and will be preserved. It does not teach that one single translation would be perfect. The Bible was just as inerrant in 1600 as it is today. There was no kjv in 1611. Its' not a matter of faith. I have faith in what the Bible says, not in what it doesn't say.

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.